Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFGHANISTAN.

Mr. THURTLE: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if, in view of the fact that, during the rebellion in Afghanistan, the Government of India has on two separate occasions provided aerial transport for two ex-Kings of that country, he has any statement to make as to the reasons for such action?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The hon. Member will understand that it is my duty to answer this question. Ex-King Inayatulla was conveyed in a British aeroplane from Kabul to Peshawar, and by rail from Peshawar to Chaman, whence he re-entered Afghanistan, at the request of the ex-King himself and of the Amir Habibulla who asked His Majesty's Minister to arrange with the Government of India for this to be done in order that further bloodshed at Kabul might be avoided. The ex-King's departure was followed by the peaceful surrender of the citadel. Transport by air was neither requested by, nor provided for, King Amanulla.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this King was taking part in civil warfare in Afghanistan?

Mr. SPEAKER: That point does not arise from this question.

Mr. THURTLE: I submit that the point which I am making does arise. This King was actually participating in civil warfare, and is it not a fact that by assisting in his rescue, we were in fact participating in the internal affairs of Afghanistan?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The hon. Member, if he had caught my
answer, could not have formed that impression. Ex-King Inayatulla was removed in this way at the request both of himself and of the Amir Habibulla in order to save bloodshed in Kabul.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the man Habibulla, who was a rebel in the act of rebellion, was in official communication with the British Government, and that the British Government were actually lending weight to his suggestions?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government have carefully refrained from any interference in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. Being asked by both the parties to give facilities for the removal of Ex-King Inayatulla in order to save bloodshed in Kabul, they thought it right to do so.

Mr. WELLOCK: Considering the persistent rumours that obtain in regard to British relations on the Afghan frontier, do the Government intend to make a full statement on this issue, which is very important?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question or the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

BOMBING ACCIDENT.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has now obtained a full Report with regard to the bombing accident near Peshawar?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India why live bombs were used instead of dummies in the bombing practice which resulted in the serious Royal Air Force accident near Peshawar; and if he will take steps to ensure that in future live bombs are only used in bombing practice over completely isolated districts?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): A court of inquiry was convened on the 24th January and was expected to report within a day or two. The result will be telegraphed at once, but my Noble Friend has
not yet received it. Meanwhile, I think it best not to make any statement.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I ask whether, in the meanwhile, every step has been taken, by sending some British representative to attend the funeral or otherwise, to express our feelings with regard to the matter?

Earl WINTERTON: Oh, yes. I do not think that it arises out of the question, but, from information which I have received from the Press, condolences have been expressed by a number of distinguished authorities including His Excellency the Viceroy, and every step has been taken to show the victims proper respect at their funerals.

Commander BELLAIRS: In view of the importance of the issue raised, may I ask the nature of the court of inquiry; is it constituted by the Air Force or the military forces, or the combined forces?

Earl WINTERTON: I understand that it is the combined force, and it will be a court of inquiry into all the circumstances.

POLITICAL PROPAGANDA (UNIVRSITIES).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the extremist political propaganda now being carried on in certain universities and colleges in India, the Government of India are taking any steps to prevent the delivery of addresses likely to incite Indian students?

Earl WINTERTON: My noble Friend has received no information as to any systematic attempts to incite students to lawlessness, and is confident that, if anything of the kind is attempted, the Provincial Governments will take any steps that are desirable and practicable.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Has it been brought to the notice of the India Office that lectures of the kind described in the question are being given?

Earl WINTERTON: As the hon. Member knows, education is a transferred subject. He may rest assured that this question will be dealt with by the proper authorities.

RAILWAY OFFICIALS (FREE PASSAGES).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that officials of the
All-India and Burmah covenanted non-gazetted railway services only obtain a free passage home at the end of their service, which may be after 25 years' service in India; whether he can authorise a more frequent free home passage in view of the strenuous conditions of service in a tropical climate; whether he is aware that a petition was submitted to the Viceroy in 1926 and again in 1928; and whether the petition has been forwarded on to the India Office and considered there?

Earl WINTERTON: Under existing rules free passages home are provided for the personnel in question not only on retirement but also when granted leave on medical certificate. I am aware, however, that the Government of India are considering the grant of more liberal passage concessions to the covenanted subordinate staff of Indian State Railways. The petition referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend has not been received at the India Office.

STEAMSHIP "SUTLEJ" (DEATHS).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any information concerning the deaths of 37 Indians in process of repatriation from British Guiana on the ss. "Sutlej" in September last; of what these people died; whether there has been a Government inquiry into the affair; and, if so, what were its findings?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has been in correspondence with the Government of India regarding the report of the Committee of Inquiry held in India in connection with this matter. Of the thirty-seven deaths of British Indians during the voyage, 30 were due to respiratory diseases, most of which occurred among aged and pauper repatriates. The question of the publication of a communique in India regarding the findings and recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry is under consideration. The Committee's report has been brought to the notice of the British Guiana Government.

DETENUS.

Mr. THURTLE: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the intentions of the Government of India towards the men who are being de-
tained, without trial, under regulation 111 of 1818, on the ground that if they were released they might commit crime?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir. The views of the Government of India, which, as I stated in my reply to a similar question on the 17th December, have been invited, have not yet been received.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the Noble Lord say when these views are likely to be received, and is he aware that these men have already been in prison for a very long time without trial?

Earl WINTERTON: I cannot tell the hon. Member the exact date when they will be received, but I should think comparatively shortly.

Mr. THURTLE: Are not the British Government ashamed to acquiesce in the prolonged imprisonment of men without trial in the way that these men have been?

Earl WINTERTON: If I had the opportunity of doing so in debate, I could answer the question very effectively, but the whole question appears to be controversial, and I hope that the hon. Member will not mind if I do not answer it now.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Are not the Government of India strong and powerful enough to take such measures to see that, if these men were released, they would not commit crime?

Earl WINTERTON: The Government of India are taking steps to exclude undesirables from India by refusing their passports.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: If the Government do exclude undesirables by refusing their passports, why are they holding innocent people in prison without trial?

Mr. WELLOCK: Are the releases already effected not justified?

Earl WINTERTON: These particular men were not incarcerated under the provisions of the Bengal Ordinance, but under Regulation 111 of 1818. The whole question whether or not they should be retained in prison is being considered by the Government of India, and my Noble Friend will no doubt be in a position shortly to make an announcement as to what the decision is.

Mr. THURTLE: The Noble Lord does admit that these men have committed no crime, does he not?

AIRCRAFTMAN SHAW.

Mr. THURTLE: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how long Colonel Lawrence, who is serving under the rank and name of Aircraftman Shaw, was stationed on the north-west frontier of India; whether during the time he was stationed there he carried out the ordinary duties of his rank; and what leave of absence, if any, was granted to him during his period of service in this part of India?

Earl WINTERTON: I have been asked to reply. As regards the first part of the question, Aircraftman Shaw was posted to No. 20 Squadron, Peshawar, from Karachi on the 26th May, 1928. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, I understand that Aircraftman Shaw was not granted any leave while with the Squadron.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the Noble Lord say whether the authorities at the time Colonel Lawrence enlisted knew that he was enlisting under a false name, and, if so, why they permitted that enlistment to take place?

Earl WINTERTON: Any question as to enlistment should be addressed to the Air Minister, but I believe that it is frequently the fact that people enlist under names other than their own.

Mr. THURTLE: Is it a fact that they enlist under false names when it is known to the authorities that the names are false?

Earl WINTERTON: As I have said, that is not a question with which I can deal—it is a question for the Air Minister.

CEYLON (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. LESTRANGE MALONE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can yet make any statement regarding the policy of His Majesty's Government towards the changes in the constitution of Ceylon recommended by the Donoughmore Commission?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what
steps he proposes to take in connection with the Donoughmore Report on the Ceylon constitution?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I still await the Governor's full report and recommendations in connection with the recent prolonged debates in the Legislative Council of Ceylon, and I am therefore not at present in a position to make any statement in the matter.

Mr. MALONE: Is any time limit placed on the receipt of this Report?

Mr. AMERY: No, but I expect it will reach me in the next two or three weeks.

Mr. MALONE: Is it the intention of the Government to adopt these recommendations before the General Election?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the recommendations of the Donoughmore Commission will not be accepted in a modified and undemocratic manner at the request of people who are elected on the old franchise, which is no longer suitable for the country in the opinion of the Donoughmore Commission?

Mr. AMERY: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any absolute assurance that there will be no modification, and I am sure he can trust me to protect minorities.

Mr. MALONE: Do the Government intend to put these reforms into operation even if they are not accepted by the Legislative Council of Ceylon?

Mr. AMERY: That is the very point dealt with in my original answer.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not possible for the coming election in Ceylon to be carried out on the new franchise proposed by the Donoughmore Commission, instead of on the obsolete franchise which would otherwise be used?

Mr. AMERY: That, again, is a matter I can only consider after receiving the Governor's Report.

SOLOMON ISLANDS.

Viscount SANDON: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is being taken on the Report on
the disturbances in the Solomon Islands; and whether wireless communication will be established at all the administrative sub-centres as recommended?

Mr. AMERY: A despatch from the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific commenting upon the Report has been received, and this and the Report are under consideration. I am not at present in a position to state the result. The cost of improving inter-island communication by establishing a chain of wireless stations is being investigated with a view to seeing how far it is possible to carry out this proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ.

BRITISH RAILWAY OFFICIALS.

Viscount SANDON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present and prospective position of British officials in the Iraqi railway service; what reply was sent to their appeal to him of I3th April last; and when it was sent?

Mr. AMERY: The majority of senior British officials in the Iraq railways are still serving upon the conditions embodied in contracts entered into with the Civil Administration which preceded the present Government of Iraq. It is the wish of His Majesty's Government that these contracts, which have long since expired, should be replaced by contracts similar to those already granted to senior British officials in other Government Departments in Iraq; but the consent of the Iraq Government to this arrangement has not yet been obtained. In August last the High Commissioner for Iraq was authorised to inform representative British officials in the Iraq railways that it was the intention of His Majesty's Government so far as it lay within their power, to make the grant of satisfactory contracts to railway officials a condition of the transfer of the railways either to the Iraq Government or to an independent corporation or to a commercial group.

RAILWAYS.

Mr. WELLOCK: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement with regard to the deadlock in negotiations over the question of the Iraqi railways which
under the financial agreement of 1924 should be transferred this year to the ownership of the Iraqi Government; what is the cause of this deadlock; and what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to effect the transference?

Mr. AMERY: I hope that it may be possible to resume conversations with the Iraq Government on the subject of the railways when a new Cabinet has been formed. Meanwhile, I think it better not to make any statement at the present time.

MILITARY AND FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS (REVISION).

Mr. MALONE: 18 and 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he will make a statement with regard to all the points of dispute with the Iraqi Government;
(2) what are the terms of the military and financial agreements subsidiary to the Anglo-Iraq Treaty of December, 1927, which have been proposed to the Iraqi Government; whether it is the opinion of the Government that ratification of that treaty is dependent on the acceptance of these subsidiary agreements by the Iraqi Government; and whether, pending such ratification, the treaty of 1924 is considered to be operative?

Mr. AMERY: I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the reply which I gave to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on the 24th January. I do not think that it would be in the public interest to make a fuller statement at this stage on the points at issue, as conversations with the Iraq Government are still proceeding. His Majesty's Government have already informed the Iraq Government that the Treaty of December, 1927, will not be ratified until the new Financial and Military Agreements have also been concluded. Until the new Treaty enters into force, the treaties of October, 1922, and January, 1926. will remain operative.

FRONTIER SITUATION.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what
is the present state of affairs on the frontier between Iraq and Nejd; and whether raids are still being carried out by Transjordanian troops against subjects of Ibn Saud?

Mr. AMERY: In reply to the first part of the question there have been some isolated raids by Nejdi tribesmen, but not of a serious character. The recent incident, in which an American missionary was killed, took place not in Iraq but in Koweit territory further South. I should like to take the opportunity of expressing my deep regret at the loss of so valuable a life, and my sympathy with the friends and relatives of the murdered man. As regards the second part of the question, Trans-Jordan troops have not carried out raids upon the subjects of King Ibn Saud. There has, as in previous years, been a certain amount of mutual raiding on this part of the frontier both by Trans-Jordan and Nejdi tribesmen.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: May I get it quite clear from the right hon. Gentleman that these reported raids from Trans-Jordan have not taken place?

Mr. AMERY: There have been no raids whatever by Transjordanian troops.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Are any steps being taken to redefine this country with a view to settling the difficulties over the wells?

Mr. AMERY: The difficulty does not reside in defining the frontier, but in the raiding habits of the desert tribes.

Sir R. HAMILTON: But the user of the wells, is not that important?

Mr. AMERY: It is not only a question of the wells.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain how mutual raiding by arrangement is carried out?

Mr. AMERY: I never suggested that.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: So we heard you.

Mr. AMERY: Mutual raiding on this part of the frontier was what I said.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Royal Air Force in Iraq committed to the defence of the Koweit territory? Is that one of the responsibilities of the Air
Force, or is it only in connection with this last raid that they have gone down there?

Mr. AMERY: The Royal Air Force in Iraq is available to protect British interests anywhere within range.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But is one of their responsibilities the protection of the extensive frontier of Koweit as well as the frontier of Iraq; and, if so, have they got all the arrangements made for it by means of strong points and centres and all the ordinary military arrangements?

Mr. AMERY: Those are obviously questionsfor the Air Ministry to answer.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But are we undertaking the protection of Koweit exactly on the same footing as the protection of Iraq?

Mr. AMERY: I do not know about "exactly on the same footing," but certainly we should not allow the territory of Koweit to become the object of incursions by any foreign Power.

SEYCHELLES.

Viscount SANDON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement or lay a White Paper as to the dispute with the non-official members in the legislature of the Seychelles; and what reply, if any, was made to their representations of 1927 and 1928, and with how long delay?

Mr. AMERY: I do not regard the correspondence of sufficient general interest to warrant the expense of a White Paper, but I am giving my Noble Friend a reply, the fulness of which will, I trust, justify my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

On the 3rd of November last the three members notified the Governor that, owing to the non-receipt of a reply to a letter addressed to me, it would be impossible for them to take part in the meeting of the Legislative Council fixed for the 5th of November, except in so far as the confirmation of the minutes of the previous meeting was concerned.

A despatch replying to the letter in question was then on its way to the Colony, and the Governor informed the members that a reply might be expected at an early date.

When the Council met on the 5th of November, and the minutes of the previous meeting had been dealt with, one of the members rose and read a letter signed by himself and his two colleagues resigning their seats. The three members then left the Council Chamber.

The letter to me was dated the 6th of July, was received in the Colonial Office on the 7th of August, and was answered in a despatch of the 2nd of October, a copy of which will be sent to my Noble Friend.

An earlier letter from the members was received in the Colonial Office on the 14th of December, 1927. That letter was not directly addressed to me hut it was discussed in a despatch to the Governor of the 24th January, 1928.

EAST AFRICA (COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governors of Tanganyika and Kenya have yet arrived in this country; and will their comments on the Hilton Young Commission's Report be treated as confidential or be given such publicity, by the laying of Papers, as shall enable this House to appreciate any subsequent action of His Majesty's Government on the questions of native lands, native and Indian representation, the retention of Colonial Office control, and the appointment of a High Commissioner or a technical co-ordinating commission?

Mr. AMERY: The two Governors have arrived, and I am at present engaged in discussion of the Report of the Commission. This discussion is preliminary and confidential, but I hope shortly to be in a position to inform the House of the procedure which it is proposed to adopt in arriving at decisions with regard to the Commission's recommendations.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is to say, we shall have the material for forming a decision available in the House before the right hon. Gentleman announces his decision in the matter?

Mr. AMERY: I am not quite sure what that means. The Report itself contains very full materials and the question was very fully discussed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman is now asking the Governors to give a report on this Report. What I wish to secure is that the country as a whole shall have the advantage of knowing the views of these Governors on the Report as well as the right hon. Gentleman—that we shall have all the facts before us before a decision is come to?

Mr. AMERY: I am not inviting the Governors to present reports. I am discussing with them fully, in confidence, to what extent and in what manner the valuable suggestions contained in the Report can best be dealt with.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will legislation be required to bring the recommendations of the Report into operation; and, if not, will the House be consulted before any action is taken?

Mr. AMERY: I must consider that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

DEFENCE FORCE ORDINANCE.

Mr. WELLOCK: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of men available for service under the Kenya Conscription Act, and the total number who have so far presented themselves?

Mr. AMERY: According to an estimate published in Kenya in October last, the number of persons liable to enrol under the Defence Force Ordinance was 5,229. The number of persons enrolled at that time was 4,518, but this figure took no account of persons temporarily absent from the Colony propably numbering 300. I have no later details.

Mr. WELLOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what happened to those who did not respond?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir, not without notice.

AFFORESTATION.

Commander SOUTHBY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to prevent unneces-
sary deforestation in Kenya Colony, observing that one of the best safeguards against locust plagues is considered by some authorities to lie in the preservation of natural woodlands, and that rainfall is directly influenced by the presence of trees; what schemes of reafforestation are being carried out in Kenya Colony; and whether the piece of Government forest known as Kaniki Forest, in the neighbourhood of Kahawa, is to be destroyed in spite of the protests of the local inhabitants?

Mr. AMERY: An account of the work of the Forest Department in Kenya is given in the Annual Report of the Department for the year 1927, a copy of which is being placed in the Library of the House. That Report shows that a policy of forest regeneration and reafforestation is being actively pursued; and I understand that the importance of establishing a scientific basis for future work founded on a more accurate knowledge of the Colony's forest resources is fully realised. I have received no report from the Colony of any proposal for the destruction of Kaniki Forest.

TANGANYIKA (SLEEPING SICKNESS).

Sir SYDNEY HENN: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that Professor Kleine has organised an expedition to Tanganyika territory, financed by the German Government among others, for the purpose of instructing members of mission stations in methods of combating sleeping sickness; whether he has any information which assures him that this expedition is to operate in agreement with the International Sleeping Sickness Bureau at Entebbe; and, if not, whether he proposes to take any sters to make sure that confusion will not be created in the minds of the native peoples by the possible introduction into that country of conflicting methods of dealing with this disease?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir, my attention has already been called to a Press report regarding a further visit of Professor Kleine to East Africa. The International Sleeping Sickness Commission, under the auspices of the League of Nations, of which Professor Kleine was a member,
concluded its labours at Entebbe in June, 1927, and its work is being continued there at the charges of the British East African Governments by the Institute of Human Trypanosomiasis Research. Professor Kleine is not now directly associated with the work at Entebbe, but I do not anticipate that any confusion would arise if he visited Tanganyika.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: May I ask whether, in connection with sleeping sickness, any steps are being taken such as were recommended by the East African Commission in 1925, to deal with tse-tse fly?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, I think in a number of directions and particularly in Tanganyika, active measures are being taken.

DEAD SEA SALT CONCESSIONS.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has progressed any further in the negotiations with regard to the Dead Sea salt concessions; and whether there is any prospect of these potash deposits being properly worked and financed in the near future?

Mr. AMERY: I informed the House before Christmas that I was awaiting a reply from the Trans-Jordan Government on points of detail which they had raised in connection with the draft concession. The reply has not yet reached me, but as soon as it does the matter will be gone into at once.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Seeing that British subjects are excluded from participation, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that Mr. Novameysky is the best substitute?

Mr. AMERY: It is news to me that British subjects are excluded.

CANADIAN HARVEST (BRITISH WORKERS).

Mr. TAYLOR: 22
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, (1) if any of the men who went to Canada last year under the special scheme for harvesters have been or are now being maintained by Canadian public funds or charitable agencies;
and, if so, whether the British Government have any financial responsibility for such expenditure;
(2) whether he can now give an estimate of the total cost likely to fall on the British Exchequer in connection with last year's special scheme for British harvesters sent to Canada;
(3) how many men who went to Canada last year under the special scheme for Canadian harvesters have now returned to Great Britain; how many of these men received loans to assist them to return to Great Britain; what was the total sum advanced for return railway fares, steam ship passages and food; and if he can state what sum has been repaid to date on account of these loans?

Mr. R. MORRISON: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will state the number of miners sent to Canada for the last harvest; the number settled there; and the total cost to the Government of the scheme?

Mr. AMERY: With regard to the numbers involved and the cost of the harvester scheme, I cannot yet add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Members for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) and Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) on 19th December. Further small groups of men have returned from Canada since that date, but details are not yet available. I am not aware that any of the men remaining in Canada have been or are now being maintained by Canadian public funds or charitable agencies. Arrangements were made before the scheme was started with the Canadian Government and the shipping companies for the immediate repatriation of all men who were likely to become a public charge and I understand that those arrangements have entirely fulfilled their purpose.

Mr. TAYLOR: If I put down this question again in a fortnight, will the right hon. Gentleman give me the latest figure?

Mr. AMERY: I cannot be sure that I shall be able to do so. These figures come in gradually from the shipping companies. If the hon. Member likes to put down this question in two or three weeks' time I will endeavour to give the answer, if the figures have come in.

Mr. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it will be before he is in a position to say what was the total cost of this scheme to the Government?

Mr. AMERY: I did give some figures just before the House rose, which are not likely to be materially increased by such very small additional items as may dribble in in the next few weeks.

Colonel WOODCOCK: In view of the fact that there were only 10 per cent. of failures, cannot we consider that the experiment of last year was a great success?

Mr. AMERY: I think from many points of view it was a success.

Mr. TAYLOR: What difficulty is there in giving the amount of money outstanding at the moment?

Mr. AMERY: I gave the figures as far as I could in December, and, when more details come in, no doubt it will be possible to ascertain how much additional expense is involved and how much is still outstanding in the way of loans.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUSSIA.

Mr. WELLOCK: 26.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has information showing that British timber importers have arranged to take the total export of Russian timber; and, if so, whether steps are to be taken to try and export British agricultural and other machinery in return for such timber?

Mr. HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As regards the first part of the hon. Member's question, I am only in possession of the statements which have appeared in the public Press. As regards the second part of the question, I can only remind the hon. Member that the foreign trade of the Soviet Union is a Government monopoly and that the disposal of the proceeds of the sale of Soviet timber is therefore necessarily entirely at the discretion of the Soviet Government.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is it not possible to explore this situation in order to get something done in the way of a settle-
ment, as has been done in America? In a situation like this, could not the Department get to work and see that something is done on the lines suggested in this question?

Mr. HACKING: We are only too anxious to arrive at a settlement, but we cannot prevent the importation of this timber except by taxation.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is this not a splendid opportunity to get into touch with the agricultural implement manufacturers in order to see if a return trade cannot be effected?

Mr. HACKING: They are very much alive to the situation. They are in the same position as we are, and they are anxious to do what they can.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a deputation of British manufacturers is about to proceed to Russia, and are the Department prepared to render any special service to that mission?

Mr. HACKING: I do not think that that point arises out of the question. I do not know exactly what it means, but I understand that there is some discussion as to whether or not they should proceed to Russia.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is the hon. Gentleman no longer treating this matter as a political question?

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is it not a fact that people are ready to trade with Russia if only they can get payment for their goods?

GAS UNDERTAKINGS.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government intend to introduce a Bill this Session to amend the legislation governing gas undertakings; if so, at what date will the Bill be introduced; and what is its main purpose?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): Yes, Sir; a Bill to amend existing gas legislation is now being drafted, and I hope that it will shortly be introduced in another place.

Mr. WELLOCK: Will the Bill cover the question brought out in the National Fuel and Power Committee's report dealing with the Midland area?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I must ask the hon. Member to await the introduction of the Bill. The particular matter to which the hon. Member refers has been referred to a committee of investigation.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my question as to what is the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I ask the hon. Member to await the introduction of the Bill.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the late introduction of this Bill is a great disadvantage to commercial companies who wish to alter their Articles, and that they are put to great expense in consequence? Under these circumstances, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to bring in this Bill as quickly as possible?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to a subsequent question on the Order Paper. The question we are now dealing with relates to gas legislation.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the hon. Member aware of the opinion, as expressed in the Press, that the Bill is non-contentious, and has the Government taken any steps to ascertain if it is non-contentious?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not think that at Question Time we can discuss the text of this Bill, and I would ask my hon. Friend to await its introduction.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask if the Bill allows the gas companies to increase their dividends?

PETROL PUMPS (REGULATIONS).

Sir HENRY JACKSON: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present position with regard to the proposed regulations on the subject of petrol pumps; and what steps he has taken to secure that the interests of the public are duly protected?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I must apologise for the length of my reply, but I think it is desirable that the position of the Board of Trade in this matter should be clearly understood.
The preparation of the regulations has been a long and difficult task, and at every stage my officers have been in close touch with the interests concerned. A
draft of the regulations was printed and put on sale in April, 1928, in order that those interested might have the fullest opportunity of making representations.
Due time was given for the receipt and consideration of criticisms, and, on the I5th November, a Conference was held at the Board of Trade with representatives of the Local Authorities, the Oil Companies, the Pump Manufacturers, the Garage Proprietors, the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club. At this Conference an amended draft of the regulations was examined point by point, and while, in the nature of the case, on certain matters of detail, there was some divergence of view, I think it may be said that the result was generally recognised as providing a set of regulations which should be generally effective and satisfactory. One or two questions of detail were dealt with subsequently in discussions with the parties specially interested.
The final revision of the draft regulations is nearly completed. It is hoped to make them shortly, to provide that they shall come into force on the 1st April, and as from that date no pump can be installed which is not of a pattern certified by the Board of Trade.
As allegations have been freely made that the regulations admit of certain types of pump which are liable to be inaccurate, I think I should explain that in the case of measuring instruments it is the statutory duty of the Board of Trade to be satisfied that the patterns used are "not such as to facilitate the perpetration of fraud." The work of examining patterns is carried out by the expert staff of the Board. These officers arrive at their conclusions by reference to technical considerations, and it is not their business to say whether one certified pattern is or is not superior to another. No pump is perfect, and one pattern may be nearer to perfection than another; the Department's business is to satisfy itself that the design reaches a certain reasonable standard of reliability, and in issuing certificates, as in drafting the new regulations, this is the end that has been kept in view.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that he has now given a complete answer to the statements that have been made by members of his own
party that the present Regulations give a preference to foreign-made pumps as against British?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have not seen any references to any particular matter of that kind. I was giving a detailed answer to the question. As far as I am aware, the Regulations are reasonable, fair and satisfactory.

Commander BELLAIRS: Has the question of the beauty or otherwise of these pumps been gone into?

Mr. WILLIAMS: We have no control over aesthetic matters.

NORFOLK OYSTER FISHERY.

Captain FAIRFAX: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of proposals for re-starting the Norfolk oyster fishery; and whether he will consider inviting suitable private persons and the local authorities concerned to meet and confer with him with a view to giving technical advice as to the best method and most suitable area for the restarting of oyster cultivation off the Norfolk coast?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I am aware that the development of oyster fisheries in Norfolk has recently been the subject of discussion. The success of such an enterprise will depend upon factors as to which, I think, the best advice can be given by practical oyster planters. If and when the assistance of the Ministry is required, I shall be glad to give it. Meanwhile, I am following the discussion with sympathetic interest.

Captain FAIRFAX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is not any particular difficulty about obtaining capital? What is urgently needed is a scientific survey, and the local authorities and the county need help in that way.

Mr. GUINNESS: We shall be glad to give any technical advice at our disposal, but we cannot, as a Ministry, take any active part in the preliminary stages, because we have certain judicial functions to carry out before any scheme can come into effect in making a special order and hearing objections.

Major McLEAN: Is it not a fact that some 20 years ago these fisheries were very productive indeed, and a revival would be equally welcome to the local people?

Mr. GUINNESS: I believe there were oyster fisheries in Norfolk, but, as far as I know, the conditions remain unaltered, and if the oyster cultivation could be reestablished it might lead to a valuable industry.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those oysters are nothing like as good as Cornish oysters?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

LOAXS.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of the loans applied for under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, on mortgage of agricultural land and in respect of agricultural improvements, respectively, under the Land Improvements Act; and the amount advanced in respect of these applications?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am informed that the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, which commenced business only two weeks ago, has under consideration applications for approximately £500,000.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the number of applications?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid that I cannot do that without notice.

GERMAN WHEAT (IMPORTS).

Mr. HURD: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the character and extent of the State assistance given to German wheat exporters, and the volume of importation of German wheat into Great Britain?

Mr. GUINNESS: The German Tariff Law of 1902 contained a provision, which was susupended during the War and revived in 1925, whereby exporters of grain, flour, malt, and other similar products receive an import licence entitling them to the duty-free import of an equivalent quantity of any kind of grain or pulse within a period of nine months. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving particulars of the customs
duties on the commodities mainly concerned through the use of these certificates and of the imports of German wheat into this country in recent years.

Following is the statement:


Import Duties.


—
Duty in Marks per 100 kilos.
English equivalent per cwt.




s.
d.


Wheat
5.0
2
6


Rye
5.0
2
6


Barley
5.0
2
6


Barley for feeding animals.
2.0
1
0


Oats
5.0
2
6


Wheat flour
11.50
5
9

Imports of Wheat from Germany into Great Britain and Northern Ireland.



Quantity.
Declared Value.



Cwts.
£


1926
2,243.029
1,428,952


1927
285,167
169,921


1928
1,561,947
760,080

ALLOTMENTS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 81.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the price paid for the 1,954 acres of land purchased for allotments by borough and district councils during 1925, 192G and 1927?

Mr. GUINNESS: The price paid for the land referred to was £283,027.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with that price in view of the fact that the 1925 Act was passed in order to facilitate the acquisition of land for allotments?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is impossible to express an opinion upon this price without knowing the details of a great many transactions. Most of these prices were arrived at after valuation by the District Valuer of the Inland Revenue Department, and I have no evidence that they were otherwise than reasonable.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is over £100 per acre.

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, but it must be remembered that they are in urban districts, and they are building plots.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is a monstrous price.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. A. M. WILLIAMS: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many cases of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in 1927 and 1928; and whether any fresh sources of infection have been discovered?

Mr. GUINNESS: The number of separate premises on which foot-and-mouth disease was confirmed during 1927 and 1928 was 143 and 138 respectively. 72 of the 138 outbreaks in 1928 were, however, directly due to the spread of infection originating in the Midlands during December, 1927. No new sources of infection have been discovered.

ENEMY DEBTS DEPARTMENT.

Mr. KELLY: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the investigation into the Enemy Debts Department is concluded; and, if so, what action is to be taken on the Report?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The investigation into the accounting procedure of the Enemy Debts Department, to which my light hon. Friend referred in his answer to the lion. Member on the 4th December, is now complete. The Report of the officers who carried out the inquiry was received on the 19th instant and is now under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

FLOUR IMPROVERS (CHLORINE).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 43.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the use of chlorine for improving certain inferior grades of foreign flour; and if it is proposed to take any action in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend is aware that chlorine is sometimes used for the treatment of flour, but he understands that its use is diminishing, and, having regard to such considerations as
the danger of increasing the cost of bread and of driving the milling trade abroad, he is not at present proposing to take any action in the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to the fact that this is disadvantageous to the British producer of wheat as well as to the British consumer?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of that, but, if my hon. and gallant Friend has any information, I shall be glad to consider it.

RADIUM.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 50.
asked the Minister of Health, in view of the necessity for an adequate supply of radium, when he expects to receive the Report of the Sub-Committee of the Committee of Civil Research?

Sir K. WOOD: The Sub-Committee will not report to my right hon. Friend and he cannot say when their Report will be received. But my right hon. Friend has arranged for the inquiries made on the subject in the House to be brought to the notice of the Sub-Committee and he trusts that their Report will be available at an early date.

Mr. MORRISON: Is it not a fact that the lives of thousands of people in this country are seriously endangered because they are unable to receive this treatment? Could not the Ministry of Health publish such information as they have as to the amount of radium available for use in the hospitals, and is any attempt being made by holding supplies back to force up the price? Is not the Ministry of Health interested in this matter?

Sir K. WOOD: The Ministry of Health is very much interested in it, and I think it would be far better to await the Report of the sub-committee that has been set up to deal with the matter.

Mr. MORRISON: Shall we have their Report at an early date?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has communicated to the sub-committee questions such as the hon. Member has put with a view if possible of expediting the matter.

Mr. MORRISON: If I put down a question in a fortnight's time, does the right hon. Gentleman think we shall have the Report?

Sir K. WOOD: It is impossible to say when the sub-committee will report, but I may be able to communicate with the hon. Member.

POOR LAW (IRISH FREE STATE NATIONALS).

Mr. ERSKINE: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the burden cast on the unions of this country owing to the numbers of Irish from the Free State who have become chargeable; and, in view of the fact that prior to the constitution of the Free State these persons were liable to be returned to their native land, what action, if any, does he propose taking to relieve the burden cast on the ratepayers?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer to the reply given by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to the right hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir R. Rodd) on 25th June, 1928. The views of His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State have not yet been received, but it should be added that the information available to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health does not suggest that in England and Wales the matter is one of serious general importance.

Mr. ERSKINE: Does my right hon. Friend realise that Westminster alone has been mulcted to the extent of £2,300 for the keep of 3,000 of these Irish Free State inmates, and that, therefore, it has nearly ruined the ratepayers of Westminster? [Interrvption.]

KELLOGG PEACE PACT (RATIFICATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENW0RTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when the Pact of Paris, commonly known as the Kellogg Peace Pact, is to be brought before Parliament?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked to reply. The opinion of both Houses of Parliament from the first declared itself so strongly in favour of ratification, and this view was so unanimously expressed in the course of the
Debates which have already taken place, that any further discussion of the Treaty appears to His Majesty's Government unnecessary. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom propose, therefore, to deposit their ratification as soon as His Majesty's Government in the Dominions are in a position to act.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very important document, and would it not be better at any rate to go through the formality of seeing whether the House is unanimous in assenting to it?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the importance of the document, but I think it would be really wasting the time of the House to ask it to repeat a decision already so clearly marked and so unanimously expressed.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask when this House was invited to give a decision on this matter, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that certain criticisms were levelled at him in regard to reservations in connection with the Pact?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The House was not invited to express an opinion, but it expressed its opinion of its own motion, as it is entitled to do. As regards reservations, there are no British reservations any more than there are any American.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: It is most irregular.

FISCAL POLICY (MR. CHURCHILL'S SPEECH).

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Manchester on 21st January; and whether the Chancellor's declaration of himself as a Free Trader and against a general system of Protection being made an issue at the General Election represents the Government's policy?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I have read the fuller report of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which appeared in the "Manchester
Guardian," and differed markedly from the imperfect summary telegraphed to the London Press. My right hon. Friend seems to have defended the fiscal position of the Government in every way: and I share his view that those who call themselves Free Traders as well as those who call themselves Protectionists can reasonably and sincerely support the policy of safeguarding of industries which we are now engaged in carrying forward.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Could the Prime Minister say that the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the right one, or that expressed by the Patronage Secretary at Evesham in November, when he stated that if the country would not take Protection all at once it would take it bit by bit?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope we have succeeded in reconciling what is obviously a difficulty, as well as my hon. Friend's party.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRESSED AREAS.

RELIEF FUND (GRANT).

Mr. BOWERMAN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether moneys raised by municipal authorities adopting mining townships and forwarded direct to local committees for distribution in the distressed areas will be supplemented by the State grant as in the case of moneys passing through the Lord Mayor's Fund?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I have been asked to reply. The Government grant is payable only to the Lord Mayor's Fund and in respect of contributions to that fund. Local contributions to that fund may, however, be earmarked for use in particular areas, and will rank for Government grant provided that the adopted area coincides with an area approved by the Lord Mayor as eligible for relief from his fund; that the earmarked contribution, together with the Government grant thereon, does not exceed the sum which the area would be entitled to receive from the fund had the contribution not been earmarked, and that the money is expended under the control of the fund organisation in that area on purposes within the scope of the fund.

Mr. PETHICK- LAWRENCE: Does the same position apply to money given to voluntary organisations and in the same way passed through the Lord Mayor's Fund?

Lord E. PERCY: I think that, generally speaking, this answer applies to all contributions which are made to the Lord Mayor's Fund and are earmarked for particular areas, but the distribution must always be through the organisation of the Lord Mayor's Fund itself.

Mr. PALING: If it is the opinion of the Government that it is desirable to deal with the question by private charity of this description, is it not possible to extend the Fund, or the circumstances in which it is now collected, to those people who prefer to give their donations in certain particular ways?

Lord E. PERCY: I think my answer shows that that can be done, so long as the administration is through the organisation of the Fund.

Mr. PALING: But is it not the fact that, if any particular town in the country desires to adopt some small mining district, and if it does not contribute to the Lord Mayor's Fund, it cannot have the benefit of the Government grant?

Lord E. PERCY: It must contribute to the Lord Mayor's Fund itself.

Mr. PALING: Then it is the fact in these circumstances that it cannot have the Government grant, and cannot the circumstances be extended to include such cases?

Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member will look at the answer I have given, I think he will see that he is incorrect.

LORD MAYOR'S FUND.

Mr. BATEY: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Education how much has been paid by the Treasury to the Lord Mayor's Fund; and the total amount of money paid from the Lord Mayor's Fund to distressed mining areas?

Miss WILKINSON: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he can state to the nearest available date how much money has been disbursed by the Lord Mayor's Fund for distressed areas; in how many areas have arrangements now been completed for dis-
tributing this charity; and to how many areas and which has money so far been sent?

Lord E. PERCY: Up to 25th January £197,127 has been disbursed to the distressed mining areas, distributed as follows:



£


South Wales
94,250


Durham and Northumberland
78,100


Gloucester and Somerset
2,000


West Hiding
2,000


Cumberland
1,000


Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire
2,850


Various approved organizations
16,927


Arrangements for distribution are either complete or are approaching completion in the above areas. A grant is being despatched immediately to Lancashire, where the distribution arrangements are also in an advanced stage. It has further been decided by the Lord Mayor to include the remaining coalfields, other than Kent, together with the iron ore fields of Cleveland and Cumberland within the area of application of the Fund, and grants will be made to those areas as soon as the necessary organization has been established. No sum has so far been paid into the Lord Mayor's Fund by the Treasury. The money voted by Parliament as a contribution to the Fund will be paid into it as required.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Are we to understand that, although at Christmas an appeal was made to the country pointing out the terrible distress that existed and that Parliament has been asked to grant money, no money has yet been granted? Is not the exact situation, as far as the Government are concerned, that no money has yet been paid?

Lord E. PERCY: The position is that some £570,000 has been subscribed; a comparatively small part of that has been disbursed and, therefore, up to now no Treasury Grant has been actually paid over to the Fund. It will be paid over as soon as required.

Mr. THOMAS: Do we understand that it is not required now? It is three weeks since Christmas. Does not the need now exist?

Lord E. PERCY: Most certainly the right hon. Gentleman is not to understand that. As he knows quite well, we have been setting up organisations in the various areas. Those organisations have to disburse the money. The rate at which the money can be disbursed depends upon those local organisations. Those local organisations are now getting going and they are disbursing the money, but up to now they have not required the full amount of the money which has hitherto been contributetd. They are now getting to work, and the money will be disbursed.

Mr. BATEY: When the Prime Minister made a statement before Christmas to the effect that the Government were going in for a pound for pound policy, were we not led to believe that the Government were prepared to pay; and do the Government not realise the urgency of having this money paid over by the Treasury as quickly as possible? In addition, I want to ask: Do the Government not realise that out of a fund which ought to be over £1,000,000, a sum of £197,000 is a disgraceful amount to pay out when miners and miners' wives and children are starving?

Lord E. PERCY: The answer is that the rate of disbursement of the fund depends upon the activity of the local committees in the various areas.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the Noble Lord aware that the statement which he has made this afternoon may seriously discourage voluntary contributions, and, in order that this should not be the case, will he announce forthwith that the Treasury is paying over the sum which it has guaranteed?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not think that the hon. Member realises the position at all, and I do not think that those outside this House who are subscribing to the fund, will be in the least discouraged by anything which I have said.

Mr. BATEY: When can we expect this fund to pay out some more money than it has paid out up to the present; and when can we expect the Government to make its contribution?

Lord E. PERCY: I have answered that question already, if the hon. Member had listened to my answer.

Mr. BATEY: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has received an answer to his question.

Mr. BATEY: I do not think I did.

NAVAL DISARMAMENT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty at Whitchurch on 16th January last, in which the right hon. Gentleman said that, in his opinion, there was not much use in making any further proposals for limitations of naval armaments by mutual agreement, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. And gallant Member has left out half of the sentence he purports to quote from the First Lord's speech. What my right hon. Friend said was that so long as suspicion as to our intention exists he doubted if there was much use in our putting forward new proposals. The policy of His Majesty's Government is to allay any such suspicion, and perhaps it would not be too much to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to assist us.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever considered why these suspicions have been aroused, and, particularly, has he considered the effect of the Anglo-French Naval and Military Pact?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is my duty, of course, to watch these things and their causes.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have I not frequently assisted the right hon. Gentleman by advising him to change his course?

Sir FRANK MEYER: Is it not a fact that articles written by the Leaders of the two Opposition parties have largely contributed to create these suspicions?

Lieut. - Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITE: Did not Senator Borah quote the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in this connection of suspicion?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is another case of a whole sentence not being quoted and that in this case it makes a great difference, whereas in
the other case it only makes the First Lord's statement more mischievous?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is there not a great danger that by talking too much we shall create difficulties?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to state if it is proposed to make any reply to the Note of the American Secretary of State of 28th September last to His Majesty's Government, No. 29 of Cmd. 3211, in which it is stated that the Government of the United States of America remains willing to use its best efforts to obtain a basis of further naval limitation satisfactory to all the naval Powers and is willing to take into consideration the special needs of any naval Power for the particular class of vessel deemed most suitable for defence; that a proposal along the lines indicated made by Great Britain would be sympathetically considered by the United States of America; and, if so, what decision has been arrived at?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have nothing to add to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) and the hon. and gallant Member himself on Wednesday last.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that this letter, to which I referred in a question as long ago as last September, opened the door very wide for more favourable negotiations with America on a matter which he himself referred to, I believe, on Saturday night at Birmingham?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It is, of course, open to either of the Governments at any time to make proposals to the other if they think that they can usefully do so. As I told the hon. and gallant Gentleman on Wednesday last, the whole matter is under consideration by His Majesty's Government, and at present I have no fresh proposals to make.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that in this Note the invitation was given to us to consider different types of vessels suited to ourselves, and that this is a way out of the deadlock reached at Geneva?

HOUSING (ASSESSMENTS).

Major ROPNER: 51.
asked the Minister of Health what action it is proposed to take to remove the inequality which exists between the assessments of houses to which Section 12 (9) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, applies, and the assessments of similar houses to which the Statute does not apply?

Sir K. WOOD: The matter is not one in which my right hon. Friend is empowered to take any administrative action. If inequality in fact arises, it could only be removed by legislation amending the statutory provision on which it is founded.

THOMPSON AND BOUVET ISLANDS.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon what terms and for what purpose he has granted a lease of Thompson Island and Bouvet Island to a Norwegian firm; and if the terms of the arrangement have been carried out?

Mr. AMERY: I have been asked to reply to this question. A licence was issued in February, 1928, after negotiations extending over a period of twelve months, to Johan Rasmussen and Company to occupy exclusively Bouvet and Thompson Islands for a period of ten years, to conduct whaling operations in the territorial waters thereof and to remove guano there from. My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware, from the statement made in this House on the 19th November last, that His Majesty's Government have waived the British claim to Bouvet Island in favour of Norway. The licensees had previously volunteered to forgo their rights under the licence.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is there any truth in the report that this island was missing when they went to take it over, and have they found it yet?

Mr. AMERY: There is no doubt as to the existence of Bouvet Island, which we have transferred to Norway. The Government have not yet received sufficient information as to the non-existence of Thompson Island to warrant the suggestion that it cannot be found.

Colonel WOODCOCK: I want to know how the right hon. Gentleman is going to complete his contract if he cannot find the island.

Mr. AMERY: If Johan Rasmussen and Company wish to press for a continuance of the licence in respect of Thompson Island, His Majesty's Government will be entirely willing to meet them in so far as they can find the island.

INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES (PACIFIC SETTLEMENT).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, now that the American Government has ratified the Kellogg pact, whether, as a means of strengthening the machinery for the pacific settlement of disputes, he will recommend His Majesty's Government to sign the optional clause?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The ratification of the Kellogg Pact may have important results in many directions, but it is too early yet to say what concrete form these results will take, particularly in matters such as that referred to by the hon. Member, on which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom desire to proceed in the closest touch with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions.

Mr. SMITH: May we expect that some time before the dissolution of this Parliament we shall have some statement?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I should hope so. The various cognate matters, of which this is one, are under almost continuous examination and consideration by His Majesty's Government.

MILK SALES.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the conviction of a milk seller for selling milk at five minutes past eight in the evening; and whether he will consider the introduction of a Regulation enabling milk to be excluded from the eight o'clock limit?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have seen a newspaper
reference to this case, but it has not otherwise been brought to my notice. I have no information showing any need for the exemption suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, and as it was only last Session that the present law was passed, it would be clearly much too soon to consider proposals for its revision.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair that the public serving of milk should be restricted, having regard to the importance of the feeding of children?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If my hon. and gallant Friend had thought of it six months ago, he might have put down an Amendment on the point when the Bill dealing with the matter was under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MALAYA COMMAND, STAFF.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the number of the staff of the General Officer Commanding, Malaya; what is the number of troops in the Malay Command; what is the total cost of the General and his staff; and what amount of this is paid by Malaya?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The number of officers borne on the staff establishment of the Malaya Command, excluding the General Officer Commanding, is 17, as shown on page 333 of Army Estimates; the answer to the second part of the question is 1,575 all ranks; to the third part, £21,200, as shown on page 294 of Army Estimates; and to the fourth part, £19,600.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this staff is totally out of proportion to the number of troops?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think the staff is any larger than is required.

OFFICERS' TRAINING AND CADET CORPS.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number and strength of the senior and junior
cadet corps in this country in each of the years 1898, 1906, 1914, and the latest available figure, together with the Government financial contribution in each case?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The senior and junior officers' training corps contingents were instituted in 1908; the cadet corps were first officially recognised in 1910. I have therefore had a table prepared showing the figures for 1914 and 1928, and I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

—
1914.
1923.


Contingents.
Numbers (excluding officers).
Grants.
Contingents.
Numbers (excluding officers).
Grants.


Officers' Training Corps—


£


£


Senior Division
…
…
23
5,208*
56,090†
20
4,258*
88,300†


Junior Division
…
…
159
26,504*
173
33,838*


Cadet Corps
…
…
1,007
39,045‡
5,035
935
49,014‡
10,332ş


* These figures relate to 1st October.


† Efficiency and other grants, and camp grants, etc.; excludes pay of Permanent Staff, etc. See page 45, Army Estimates, 1914–15, and pages 62 and 63, Army Estimates, 1928.


‡ These figures relate to 31st October.


ş See pages 60 and 61, Army Estimates, 1928. Excludes cost of loan of camp equipment, etc.

RACECOURSE BETTING CONTROL BOARD.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 65.
asked the Home Secretary by whom he is represented on the Racecourse Betting Control Board; and whether the Government proposes to advance money to the board for the installation of the totalisator on racecourses?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Sir Clement Hindley as Chairman and Sir Reginald Blair as a member of the Board were appointed by me. As regards the second part of the question, the answer is in the negative.

Colonel WOODCOCK: How is it proposed to start the totalisator without any funds at all?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is that not a question for the Jockey Club and not for the House of Commons?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it is a matter for the Board itself, and, if

Mr. SMITH: Was there not a predecessor of the Officers' Training Corps in the two earlier periods?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If so, it is not comparable with the existing Officers' Training Corps.

Mr. SMITH: Would it be possible to get a financial figure of the Government contribution in regard to these preceding periods of 1898 and 1906?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The corps did not exist then, and therefore it is impossible.

Following is the table:

my hon. and gallant Friend communicates with Sir Clement Hindley, I am sure he will get an answer.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (HEIGHT STANDAED).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 66.
asked the Home Secretary why the height standard for the Metropolitan constabulary was reduced; whether there has been any difficulty recently in securing recruits; whether the establishment of the constabulary is being increased; and, if so, by how many?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The reason for the temporary modification of the height standard is the difficulty experienced in obtaining sufficient suitable recruits, above the normal minimum of height, to fill the current vacancies in the force. There has been no recent change of establishment, apart from trifling variations.

PRESERVATION OF INFANT LIFE BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 25th January.]

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Mr. JAMBS HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 80.—(General Exchequer grants in London.)

The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury)—to leave out Sub-section (4) —it has been pointed out to me that it is closely bound up with the Amendment to Clause 82 in the name of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris)—in page 65, to leave out from the word "Parliament" in line 31, to the end of the Sub-section. That being so, I would not attempt to prevent the later Amendment being mentioned in the course of the discussion. I think we might have a discussion which would cover the two, but, of course, if there are separate points arising on Clause 82, I shall not prevent these being raised.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move, in page 64, line 32, to leave out Sub-section (4).
I am grateful to you, Sir, for allowing us some latitude in discussing this Amendment and for indicating that you will allow references to the other Amendment on Clause 82 which you have mentioned. In the first place, I would point out that, in the discussion of these Clauses, the Committee find the same difficulty as was found in regard to earlier Clauses of a similar character. The estimates on which certain figures have been arrived at, are estimates concerning the year 1926–27, whereas the proper year for this purpose would be 1927–28. On Thursday last I asked the Minister of Health to furnish a return based on the rate figures for the year 1928–29 or on the latest figures available showing the estimated effect of this Bill —as the Government proposed to amend it—on the rates of the boroughs of England and Wales during the first five years and at the end of 15 years. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his answer said:
Although the broad effect of the scheme in future years is clear from the examples in the Command Papers, it is obvious that any attempt to forecast at the present time the poundage of the rates in a particular area 15 years hence could only be misleading. Neither the amount of the rate-borne expenditure of the standard year (1928–29) nor the values in force on the appointed day (1st October, 1929) as apportioned under the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, are ascertainable.
This is the point I wish to stress:
Moreover, any such forecast would necessarily be based on such assumptions as that not only the circumstances of that area had remained quite unchanged during all that period, but that equally the circumstances of every other area had remained unchanged—assumptions which would certainly be falsified in practice. In these circumstances, it is not proposed to issue such a return as is suggested by the hon. Member."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1929; col. 357, Vol. 224.]
I call attention to that answer, because it touches the difficulty in which we find ourselves when we argue the effect of the de-rating part of this scheme. In dealing with the first Amendment, I should like to say that this Clause seems to me one of the meanest in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are very courageous when they are dealing with the poorer boroughs or the poorer people, but when it comes to dealing with wealthy corporations or with the wealthy districts of the country, they prove themselves cowards, and run away. The tiny Act which is dealt with in this Clause was passed in 1894 in order to equalise some of the burdens which the poorer boroughs bear in the Metropolis. It was carried to equalise the rates of sanitary authorities by a general rate over London. It has stood ever since 1894, and has been of incalculable service to the poorer boroughs of London.
Under the present Act, the fund is based on a contribution of a 6d. rate. This tiny rate of 6d. on the rich boroughs of London is to be abolished. That 6d. rate is not levied on every parish in London. It would not be levied on those boroughs poor enough to receive contributions under the Act. It is levied on the richer boroughs. I think the City of London is the only borough which pays the full 6d. in the pound rate. I think the other contributing boroughs who pay into the fund pay a decreasing amount. The pool that was formed by the contributions of the 6d. rate, has been distributed according to population. The
poorest boroughs, who are not paying-in boroughs, receive out of the fund sums ranging from 1d. in the pound in relief of their rates, to 7½d. in the case of Bethnal Green, and 7d. in the case of the borough of Poplar. We take out of the fund each year something like £26,000, and we are expected to spend that money in improvements in our ordinary sanitary health services. The relief was granted specially for that purpose, because I suppose the House of Commons realised that it was just as important to, say, Westminster that Batter-sea should administetr its health services in a proper and efficient manner as to Battersea itself, or to the City of London that Bethnal Green should administer its health affairs efficiently as a borough contiguous to the City of London. Obviously, it is of as much importance to the City of London that disease in Bethnal Green should be kept within limits, especially infectious disease, to the City of London as to the people who live in Bethnal Green. That was the reason why the Act was passed.
While we were and still are very grateful for what we receive out of the fund, those of us who have had experience of administration in the poorer areas agree that the distribution of the fund on the population basis is not the best basis on which to distribute such a fund. As an instance of that point of view, we have only to look at the figures relating to Westminster and Battersea. A penny rate in Westminster produces about £40,000. I should have liked to have rubbed that figure in. Westminster only has to serve a population of 139,000. Just across the water, in the borough of Battersea, a penny rate produces only £4,600, and Battersea has to serve a population, with this very low rateable value, of 160,000. That was the reason which led Parliament in 1894 to pass the Act which it is proposed to repeal. Of the eight boroughs in London who contribute varying sums towards the fund, I know of none, and certainly I have not read of any agitation, which desires a repeal of this small measure of equalisation.
This equalisation has nothing to do with Poor Law or Poor Law administration. It is equalisation up to a certain point so far as the money for health services is concerned. Therefore, there
can be no question of pauperisation, or anything of that kind. There are eight contributing boroughs and 20 boroughs on the other side. The test in connection with the fund is need, and the need must be greatest where the population is a poor one and where the rateable value is very low. In Battersea, the rateable value per head of the population is £6 15s. 5d.; in Bethnal Green £5 2s. 11d.; in Camberwel) £5 14s. 7d.; in Westminster £69 l1s. 3d.; and in Holborn £38 17s. 1d. With regard to the City of London and its night population —I admit it would be an unfair comparison, if we wanted to press it to its logical conclusion, as some people might want to do—the rateable value is £600 per head of the population who inhabit the square mile of the City at night. The figures prove conclusively that this very small measure of justice in connection with health administration in the county of London, ought not to be repealed but ought to be retained.
4.0.p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman may tell us that the reason why we are to have the relief of 7d. taken away from us in Poplar and 7½d. in Bethnal Green, is that we are to get relief because the costs of the Poor Law services are to be spread over the whole of the Metropolis. That is an altogether different story, and one which we shall go on to argue. I want to point out to the Comrrnttee—and the right hon. Gentleman will remember his argument in this connection—that if you unify under one authority a service which has been split amongst 32 different authorities, you have no right to say that certain parts of the area shall bear a heavier cost than other parts. Once you make the administration of the Poor Law throughout the county of London a unified one, then you ought to treat that as separate and apart from anything else. It is no answer to say that, because an act of justice, very long overdue, is going to be partially done now we must give up something which was granted for an entirely different service--a service from which all London benefits. I repeat that the health of East London, the health of South-East London and the health of the South of the river near here is as much a matter of concern to the people of Westminster as it is to the people in the East End and on the other side of the river, and the right hon. Gentleman,
when he replies will, I hope, give us some definite, clear reasons why this is being done. He must not ride off on the same argument that he put up last week, again and again, that he has come to certain agreements. I am perfectly sure he has not come to any agreement with the boroughs in the East End of London or the South-East of London, and whatever agreement he may have come to with certain other people, he cannot get rid of the fact that in bringing in this Bill, and proposing to repeal this very small measure of justice to the poorer boroughs of London, he will be inflicting a very great injustice on them.
Coming to the proposal to deal with Poor Law expenditure, the Government propose in Clause 82 to do for London exactly what they have done in Clause 78 with regard to the rest of the country. I said a moment ago, that through equalising the Poor Law expenditure over the whole of London, there is no doubt that boroughs and unions like Bermondsey, Poplar, and others gain very considerably. We advocated the equalisation of the Poor Law services because it would aid us, and I think I said on the Second Reading of this Bill that with this part of the Bill we very thoroughly agreed. It is a reform very long overdue, and it is one which we, at any rate, welcome. What has happened? The right hon. Gentleman, as I have said, is very courageous when he is dealing with poor people, but when the rich boroughs get on their hind legs and threaten him, he gives in, with the result that the poorer boroughs are going to be called upon to pay for a centralised service exactly double what the other boroughs have to pay. You say to us in effect, that because under this scheme, not of de-rating, but of unification of Poor Law administration for the county of London, it will bring a relief of 8s.—8s. 9d., I think the right hon. Gentleman estimated it at one time, but I am quite willing to take it at 8s., because that is the case for five years—you say, "You shall pay back 4s. of that amount." Poplar is called upon to pay back 4s., and Bethnal Green and other boroughs proportionately similar amounts, into a pool to enable the Government to save the richer boroughs from the cost of this centralised service. The right hon. Gentleman has often said to us that we have no right to have money from the centre unless the centre has
control. Now he is going to take money from us locally without giving us any control at all. The control is taken out of our hands, and you are going to make us pay double the amount that is being paid by other people, in addition to taking away the 7d. of the equalisation fund of which I have just been speaking.
I want to say one other word in this connection. The difficulty about this Bill is that the right hon. Gentleman has mixed up the money in such a fashion that very few people can disentangle it. We can see quite clearly that he takes half of this 8s. away from us, but when you come to consider what the effect will be, if the different boroughs which are de-rated are called upon to put in hand other social services or spend more money on the health or the improvement of their districts, through the mixing up of the de-rating business with this, he leaves the industrial boroughs in a very much worse plight than other districts. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head, because here is the fact again to which I called attention. First of all, the rateable value of Westminster is £9,216,000. Out of that sum Westminster will lose £209,000 through de-rating, and Shore-ditch will lose nearly £221,000 out of a rateable value of £949,000. The difference will be seen there, and it may be said that in the case of Poplar, where we lose just upon a quarter of a million, and our rateable value is £917,000, while that is not much more than Westminster, proportionately it is 10 times as much. Therefore, there is no earthly use in the right hon. Gentleman saying to us, especially in view of his answer last Thursday, that nobody knows what will happen in the years after this Bill is passed. It is no use his saying to us that we are gaining this 4s., or that we are gaining any sum at all. The real fact of the matter is that if the weighted population figure had been properly applied, we ought to have had 10 times as much for Poplar as against three times, which the right hon. Gentleman, through his formula, has applied, that is if you weight us in proportion to our rateable value as well as population.
It is true—and I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to ride off on this—that we get 4s. reduction straight away. That looks, on the fact of it. a very fine thing
indeed, but when all this is done, Poplar will still be rated at 21s. in the £, Stepney at 16s. 8d., Bethnal Green at 18s. 5d., and Bermondsey at 16s. 9d., whereas the City of London will still get away with 9s. 2d., and Westminster with 9s. 6d. When you think of the County of London as a single unit, there cannot be any justification for the disparity of these figures. If the right hon. Gentleman had wanted to assist his very rich friends, he could have assisted them out of the national Exchequer, and not at the expense of the poorer boroughs. He has no right in one Clause to centralise this administration, and, apparently, equalise the expenditure, and then say, because the richer boroughs complain, "Well, you must give half the addition back again." cked method of dealing with the case, that we want these two Amendments carried.
When one comes to consider the new social services which either the county or borough councils may want to put into operation, the poorer boroughs, owing to the de-rating scheme, are in an infinitely worse plight than the richer boroughs, because de-rating hits the poorer boroughs much harder than it does Westminster. If the Government had adopted our proposal to give back pound for pound as they de-rated, the difficulty of new services would not have arisen. But the plan they have adopted leaves the poorer boroughs ever so much harder hit than they ought to be. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman may tell us that the rate for 1928–29 may show reduction. I think that is possibly true, but that has nothing whatever to do with the Bill now before the House. It has nothing whatever to do with equalisation or with de-rating, or anything connected with this Bill, but it has to do with circumstances of which the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware. The other day I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that in the case of the Port of London Authority there may be a very big increase of rateable value when the huge improvements, which at long last are being carried out at the docks, are completed, and that our rates in Poplar ought to go down, but we shall not get that advantage because of the operation of the de-rating scheme.
As I said at the beginning, the right hon. Gentleman in these proposals is living up both to his reputation and to his practice of taking care of the rich and penalising the poor.

Mr. HARRIS: I am one of those who feel grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having carried out a long overdue reform, that is, to make the Poor Law a common responsibility over the whole of London. We are thankful that at last there is a prospect of this reform becoming part of the law of the land. Our gratitude, however, is somewhat modified by the fact that his task in effecting this change has been made easy because all parties in London have been agreed substantially upon it. Some years ago the London County Council unanimously carried a resolution in favour of the principle. That is a rare thing, because we are as controversial in the County Hall as in the House of Commons. Nor has there been any real opposition on the part of the borough councils, with the exception, of course, of the City of London, which, needless to say, opposes every reform, no matter from what source it comes. With this single exception the right hon. Gentleman will admit that he has had plenty of support from London in carrying his proposal, and no doubt he is grateful to London for the attitude it has taken up on the matter, as we are grateful to him for putting it in this Bill.
But the removal of one injustice does not justify the creation of the new injustice for which he is responsible by this proposal. There are very great differences in the matter of wealth, population and circumstances between the 28 boroughs in the Metropolis, and I do not think he has been asked by any single authority, any single public authority, to do away with an Act which has existed from 1894, which has worked smoothly, caused no friction, and which put the various boroughs of London on some level of equality and enabled them to carry out public services to their citizens without the imposition of too large a rate. What is the result of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal? In doing away with the Equalisation of Bates Act, Bethnal Green will lose 9d. in the £ and the City of London will gain 5d. in the £. I know the argument which will be put forward in defence of the proposal; it is that we
ought not to mind this because the result of the Poor Law being made a common responsibility for the whole area will be to give great relief to the poorer districts. Either it is right or it is wrong to make the Poor Law a common responsibility; it is a common burden or it is not, but it has nothing whatever to do with the administration of such matters as health, sanitation, housing and other public services, carried on by the municipalities, and I cannot see what relation the one has to the other.
The reason why there has been no opposition to the suggestion that the Poor Law should be a common responsibility for the whole of London, the justification for the proposal, is that a great number of people who live in the poorer districts actually work in the richer boroughs. The carmen, packers, carriers, warehousemen and clerks, who work in the City of London, live in Bethnal Green, Bermondsey, Southwark and Poplar, and it is admitted by every part of London except the City of London that the work of the poor law should be in the hands of a central authority. On the other hand, the Minister of Health will say that one result of the Poor Law becoming a common charge will be a drop in the rates of Poplar from 23s. to 19s. in the £; a drop in the rates of Bethnal Green from 17s. to 15s., and he may say, "Why have you any grievance; why are you not content? Are not the rates of these poor districts coming down? Is it fair to complain against the other part of the Government's scheme?" Let me remind the Comnnittee that whilst it is true that the rates of Bethnal Green will come down to 15s., the rates of Westminster and the City of London will be 9s. 2d. in the £. There will still be that enormous difference. The rates of the City of Westminster and the City of London will remain exactly as they are, at 9s. 2d. in the £, while the rates of the boroughs in the East End of London will be something like 50 per cent. higher.
The reason, of course, is that there is such an immense difference in assessable value. The City of London, with its one square mile, has an assessable value of £8,000,000 and the City of Westminster an assessable value of £9,000,000, while Bethnal Green is only £600,000 and Poplar, with all the advantages of the docks, is only £1,000,000. A penny rate
in Bethnal Green brings in only £2,300, but in the City of London, a penny rate brings in £32,000 and in the City of Westminster, £36,000. The result is that the City of London and the City of Westminster acquire a reputation for good government, economy and efficiency. They are not extravagant, while Poplar has become a byword. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) is quite able to defend Poplar but it is a remarkable thing, when you investigate the actual expenditure, to find that notorious Poplar does not come out so badly when compared with the City of Westminster and the City of London. If you take the public health services you will find that there is not much to choose between the various parts of London. Take the maintenance, cleansing and repair of streets. It is true that Poplar with its high wages spends £118,000 a year, but the City of London spends £260,000 and the City of Westminster £258,000. My own little modest borough spends £66,000.
If you take maternity and child welfare then the City of London does show economy. It spends £320, against Poplar's £5,300 and Bethnal Green's £4,200, but on the more expensive services, like the provision of public libraries, baths, washhouses and the lighting of the streets, it is quite a mistake to think that the East End Boroughs are more extravagant in their expenditure than the richer districts. The actual total expenditure of Westminster on municipal services is much larger than that of Poplar; it is £509,000 as against £337,000 in Poplar and £190,000 in Bethnal Green. The whole trouble is that owing to a lower assessable value the actual rate in the £ is high in these poorer districts while in the richer districts, owing to their high assessable value, the rate is low. In order to equalise the position the Act of 1894 was passed, under which the London County Council levies a rate of 6d. in the £ on assessable value and distributes the money, when collected, to the various boroughs according to population, with the result that the poorer districts receive and the richer districts pay in.
The Government, not content with doing away with the Equalisation of Rates Act, on their own initiative, without being requested by any of the parties con-
cerned, also propose to ask the poorer districts to help the richer districts and later on of the Order Paper I have an Amendment down dealing with this point. They are proposing to ask the poorer districts to help the richer districts to bear the burden of their derating scheme. Under the Bill, Bermondsey is to contribute £32,000, Bethnal Green £22,000, Deptford £12,000, Greenwich £15,000, Poplar £79,000 and Stepney £51,000, in order to help rich boroughs like Kensington, Paddington, Marylebone and Westminster, to carry the burden of the Government's de-rating scheme and prevent a higher rate for the next five years. It is true that the Government are going to bear the other half of the burden, but it is an absurd and preposterous proposal that the Government should ask the poorer districts out of their rates to bolster up the rates of the rich districts of London. There is no other case of this kind in the whole of the country; and it is not reasonable, fair or just. Actually, Bethnal Green will contribute no less than a rate of 11d. in the £ while Poplar —I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley is aware of this fact—is going to be asked to contribute an amount equal to a rate of 2s. 7d. in the £, in order that the rates of the City of London and the City of Westminster should remain stabilised at 9s. 2d. That is a proposal which even the Parliamentary Secretary will not be able to defend. I do not think it can be defended on any ground of reason, practice, or precedent.
There is another and an even more serious anomaly in this scheme. The greater part of the factories which are to be de-rated are situate in the poorer districts of London, not in the richer districts. The industrial districts are in the East End and North of London, not in the centre, and these poorer districts will find their area of rating decreased. In the future they will find that the proceeds of a penny rate will be much less than they are at present. So that, in addition to being asked to bear this extra burden, they will suffer as rating authorities very much more than the other parts of London. The Government should consider, even at this stage, whether it is wise to ask the Committee to agree to drop the equalisation fund—a proposal
that is not desired and has not been asked for by any part of London and is certainly not justified by any facts or figures that have been put before it.

Mr. SCURR: We are faced with one of the difficulties which constantly arise on account of the stupid system of government which exists in London. It is a difficulty which does not exist in the large provincial towns. Take the city represented by the Minister of Health. It is a large area with a large population. For all the services in that particular city there is an equalised rate levied over the whole of the city, and there is one authority to deal with the services. Here in London we have the County Council, 28 borough councils, 25 boards of guardians and numerous other authorities. The Minister is, of course, taking a step forward in bringing the Poor Law for the County of London under the control of one authority, the County Council. I am only sorry that, when introducing what he is pleased to term a Local Government Bill, he has not gone a step further and got rid of the borough councils at the same time and had one authority for the whole of London.
When we are facing all these difficulties, we are led to wonder what is going to be the result, particularly in the case of individual boroughs. I agree with what has been said with regard to the abolition of the London (Equalisation of Rates) Act of 1894. If this Bill is passed, the Poor Law will be a common charge, and in that respect there will be an equalised rate all over London. We admit that that will confer certain benefits on some of the poorer boroughs. Poplar, for example, will benefit, if the expenditure remains as during the past year all over London, to the extent of 7s. in the £. But apparently the right hon. Gentleman, having seen that Poplar is to receive 7s. and Bethnal Green nearly 3s., has decided that these areas are getting too much. Therefore he has had to devise some scheme for taking away with one hand what he is giving with the other. The London (Equalisation of Rates) Act was passed to deal not with the question of the Poor Law at all, but with questions relating to health services. I submit that, so far as London is concerned, despite the absurd division which is made in regard to the City of Westminster and the Royal Borough of Kensington—some of them seem to like fancy names attached to their
titles—there really is a unity in London. Certain portions of the county are largely residential, but persons residing there have to work in other portions of the county. Consequently there is no case made out for getting rid of this equalisation fund. There is another point which concerns the next Amendment on the Paper. Clause 82, Sub-section (1, a,) states:
There shall be ascertained in accordance with the rules set out in the Fifth Schedule to this Act.
When I turn to the Fifth Schedule I find the following:
There shall be estimated and certified as respects each separately rated area the rate in the pound required to raise an amount certified as being the amount of the expenditure for the standard year falling to be borne by rates.
I take it that, in making this arrangement in Clause 82, the equalisation of rates is not being taken into consideration at all. That will make a very considerable difference in the estimates by various competent authorities as to what will be borne by the various boroughs as their contributions in order that other boroughs shall not have their rates raised. I should like to know from the Minister whether, in ascertaining the amount which is to be levied by the county council over the whole of London, there has been included the Equalisation of Rates Act. It would make a difference in Battersea, for example, of 5¼d. in the £, in Bethnal Green a difference of 9d., and in Deptford a difference of 6¾d. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give me the information now and so save time, and, perhaps, affect my argument. Does the scheme under the Fifth Schedule include the amounts of the Equalisation of Rates Act or not?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The answer is "No," because the Equalisation of Rates Act is repealed by the Bill, and it cannot be taken into account in the expenditure of the standard year.

Miss LAWRENCE: The standard year is the question under consideration.

Mr. SCURR: I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is a very important point indeed, as between the various boroughs. Take Battersea for example. On the assumption which has been made, that equalisation has been
included, Battersea will stand where it is now without either gain or loss, but if the equalisation fund is left out there will be an increase in rates in Battersea of 6¼d. in the £.I see that the Minister shakes his head, but I can only take the answer that he has given us. Reference has been made to the way in which the poorer boroughs are to suffer as a result of this proposed arrangement. It is not only the poorer boroughs that are being badly treated. In some ways they may get a benefit. But the boroughs round about the centre have to be considered. Take Islington as an example. As a result of the equalisation of the poor rate, Islington will get an increase of 3.7d. in the £,but as a result of the abolition of the equalisation of rates it will have a further 5½d. put upon it. Therefore, the net result of the three things which the Government are proposing, the equalisation of the poor rate, the abolition of the Equalisation of Rates Act of 1894, and the de-rating proposals, will be that Islington will have to face an increase of at least 6d. in the £.It is only another example of the complete failure of the formula. Right through, negotiations have had to be carried on between the Minister and the London local authorities, and the formula has practically been cast to the wind.
The poor boroughs have had these services put upon them because of the system of dual government which prevails in London. The areas with the low rateable value are the great industrial centres. Poplar is an example. Until recently the great source of its rateable Value was the docks—the docks which very largely produce the problem of poverty in Poplar, by reason of the casual labour system and the fact that docks attract labour from other parts of the country. Just when we were thinking that we were going to get out of that difficulty, when we imagined that the great burden which has been thrown upon Poplar would be taken off its shoulders and laid on London as a whole, we find the Minister coming along and taking away what he has given, so that instead of receiving the benefit of something like 6s. in the £,we are to receive only 3s. in the £.
I cannot see what rhyme or reason there can be for suggesting that boroughs
which may suffer to the extent of a few pence in the pound, as a result of the scheme, should be put in the position in which they cannot lose. Figures have already been quoted showing the difference in the amount raised by a penny rate in the different localities. As has been said, when you compare these localities you very often find that, from the point of view of economy and efficiency, the less highly assessed boroughs are really better and more cheaply administered than are some of the richer boroughs. I consider that this scheme is bad from beginning to end, and I hope that even now the Minister will modify it.

Mr. MARCH: I want to support the deletion of this Sub-section for the reasons which have already been given, and also in order to point out that this Sub-section, if it stands, will hit the poorer boroughs. Although we know that this is a great Local Government Bill which is going to do good in some directions, I am certain that neither the Minister nor the Government desire to do an injury to the poorer boroughs. If this goes through in its present form, it will certainly hit the poorer boroughs. We have been hit long enough and, as a matter of fact, too long. The poorer boroughs have had to bear a burden that they have no right to bear. Part of the reform in this Bill is one that is long overdue, but that is no reason why the Government should put forward the repeal of the Equalisation of Rates Act, 1894. It is for quite different purposes that it ought to be considered by the Government. So far as we know, there has been no real advocacy from the richer boroughs to get this equalisation of rates taken away. They realise how important it is that the health services should be kept up in the poorer boroughs, when you remember the vast population in the districts of casual labour and unemployed labour—as, for instance, in Poplar, where we have 15.25 per cent. having relief and unemployed, the largest percentage in any one of the 28 boroughs. Our assessable value is not as it should be, had it not been for the alteration in the docks, the re-assessment of which will reduce the rateable value in Poplar very considerably. The question of this 6d. in the £ on the Equalisation of Rates Act,
and also the alteration in the de-rating and the loss to be sustained in Poplar on that, will bring us up to another 2s. in the £ on our rates. That is going back again, and we think that this question should be left until we get the further 15 or 19 years while this is working itself out. That would be the time to give consideration as to how it is working. We have no right to go on helping the richer boroughs to the detriment of the poorer boroughs.

Miss LAWRENCE: I want to ask the Minister to explain fully what is meant by Schedule V. There has been a general impression that no Metropolitan borough is to lose money during the guarantee year.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What is the guarantee year?

Miss LAWRENCE: I mean on the expenditure of 1928. Say it is five years. No Metropolitan borough is to lose during the first year of the scheme on its expenditure of 192S–29 as far as this scheme is concerned. The total loss of the boroughs, as calculated by Schedule V, is to be made up. The point of difficulty is that Schedule V says that you are to estimate the amount of the expenditure falling to be borne by rates in that area during the standard year. Now, the expenditure of the boroughs was made partly by rates in that year and partly, among other things, by the equalisation of rates fund. Taking the 1925–26 figures, about £44,000 went into the borough from the equalisation fund and was spent by the borough. That money was not raised by rates within the borough at all. It seems to me that in calculating the loss, the total loss to the boroughs will not be made up. I do hope the Minister will explain that. The fault is that Schedule V does not quite meet this. If you ignore the equalisation fund and only make up the amount borne by the ratepayers in the district, you will leave some boroughs in the first year of the scheme with a, loss of 6d. or 7d. in the £, or more.
Battersea will lose 6d. on account of equalisation of the Poor Rates, and that will be made up clearly, under Schedule V. It will lose 3d. on de-rating and, clearly, that will be made up under Schedule V. But it will also lose a sum equivalent to a 5d. rate, and it is ex-
tremely doubtful under Schedule V whether the amount lost by this money coming into the borough will be made up. The words of the Schedule seem to imply that only the amount falling on the rates in the district will be made up. The point is that a large part of local expenditure is made up by the sums which come into the borough from the equalisation fund. That fund is to be demolished. The expenditure is on rates levied within that area. If that means what is says, it means that every district is to have made up to it the rating expenditure in the district, but with regard to equalisation—large extra sums—it does not appear that the loss from them will be made up if the loss is calculated under Schedule V. Battersea, for example, will lose 6d. on the equalisation fund. Will that be made up under Schedule V? Islington, which will be the worst sufferer, will lose 11d. on its rates by losing the grant it gets from the equalisation fund. Will that be made up? If so, how does the wording of Schedule V cover it? It is not raised within the borough. I do hope that I am not right, but if I am right, it means that many boroughs will lose the amount they now gain from the equalisation fund.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), when he moved this Amendment, said that the particular Clause which it is sought to delete was the meanest—

Mr. LANSBURY: One of them.

Sir K. WOOD: —of the whole of the hundred odd Clauses within the compass of these particular proposals. If this is the meanest Clause he can find, I think the Minister might very well be satisfied with that judgment. What in fact is the proposal? The proposal is this, that the London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894, shall now cease to be in operation. The hon. Member was perfectly right when he gave the general description of the object of that Measure, but he failed to state that when it was brought before the House of Commons it originated in a Resolution that provision ought to be made for the further equalising of rates throughout the Metropolis. What are the circumstances today? Why is it that neither the London
County Council nor the metropolitan boroughs have protested, if this is such an outrage as the hon. Member suggests? The reason, of course, is perfectly obvious, that with the equalisation of the Poor Law expenses in London this particular measure of assistance which was hitherto available to the metropolitan boroughs will be trifling in comparison with the assistance which will be afforded to them as a result of these proposals.
5.0.p.m.
We have heard also from the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) as to the circumstances, and he quite frankly admitted that, so far as the Bethnal Green grant was concerned, instead of the assistance being measured in pence, the assistance given to Bethnal Green and Poplar by the Government scheme would be measured in shillings. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green gives modified gratitude for this. I understand he has been a supporter of the equalisation of rates in London for many years. I think he ought to commend this Government for bringing it into operation, especially when he recalls the failure of his own party ever to do so. I remember years ago, when the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was writing about the necessity of all this, but he never did anything. The Liberal party never brought into operation a Measure of this kind, and they had plenty of time and opportunity, and yet the hon. Gentleman, when we do this and bring in a great measure of relief, so far as Bethnal Green is concerned, complains in a trumpery sort of way, if I may say so, and endeavours to minimise the considerable benefit which Bethnal Green is getting, simply because a few pence are lost to them by the repeal of this particular Measure. I hope when he does explain this Measure to Bethnal Green he will tell them exactly what has happened.
I must say I think it is rather small for hon. Members who represent London constituencies in this House, simply because they happen to be in opposition, to minimise the benefits which are being given in this way, here and, no doubt, on public platforms. So I gather from the efforts of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley in Battersea. That is why we have heard such a lot about Battersea this afternoon. I suppose the hon. Mem-
ber and the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) are now endeavouring to justify the speeches which they made in Battersea on Friday and Saturday last.

Miss LAWRENCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when and where I spoke about the loss of rates to Battersea?

Sir K. WOOD: This afternoon.

Miss LAWRENCE: I thought the right hon. Gentleman referred to my speech on de-rating on Friday or Saturday last, and I ask him to send me any report in which he can find any remarks of mine at Battersea about the loss of rates.

Sir K. WOOD: I am glad to hear the hon. Lady did not say anything of that sort. I think she was very wise not to have done so.

Miss LAWRENCE: Then will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his remark that in a speech in Battersea I made such remarks?

Sir K. WOOD: I will do anything that will please the hon. Lady. I think she would be very unwise to have gone down to Battersea on Friday night and told them what was the real result of this scheme so far as Battersea is concerned. Then we come to another objection. Hon. Members who wish to pick holes in this scheme, speaking about another Amendment which will come later, referred to the payment of the supplementary Exchequer grants, and the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley even went so far as to say that this system of supplementary Exchequer grants has been devised by my right hon. Friend in order to penalise the richer boroughs of London and make them pay for the poorer boroughs.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman is forgetting his argument. I certainly did not say he was penalising the richer boroughs, but that he was penalising the poorer for the benefit of the richer.

Sir K. WOOD: I apologise. The hon. Member said this was brought in for the purpose of penalising the poorer boroughs in order to bring assistance to the richer boroughs. The hon. Gentleman would, on a moment's reflection, or if he consulted the hon. Member beside him,
know that this scheme is not a scheme that affects London only. It is a scheme that is in operation for other parts of the country, and the hon. Gentleman should know that the purpose of spreading over this period, which is now being extended from 15 years to 19 years, is in order to ease the transition until we get to the final financial arrangements under this Bill. If he would examine the scheme in detail, he would find that throughout the country generally the purpose is not in any way to penalise the poorer boroughs. All it is doing, even in London, is that where areas will get a considerable gain, then for a limited period only they will help to ease the transitional stage for the others. When a Scheme of this kind, involving a considerable alteration in local government machinery, is being brought into operation, is it unfair to say to a borough which is gaining considerably as a result of this proposal that for a limited period they should come with some assistance to other boroughs who have to make sacrifices on account of this scheme, and ease the position in that way?
I remember very well that when the representatives of the London County Council came on a deputation to my right hon. Friend, I think they were almost the first—there have been many more since—to say, speaking generally and broadly, with regard to the administrative proposals of the Government in relation to local government, I hat they were in agreement. I have if he shorthand notes, and they made none of the criticisms which we have heard for so many days during these Debates from hon. Members opposite in connection with the abolition of the boards of guardians and matters of that kind. They were in general agreement with the Government as regards this scheme; hut who would think, hearing the observations of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood). leading his party, as he has done with great ability, and certainly with great patience, considering the length and number of the speeches made by his own followers, that as regards London, the great capital city, all the parties on the London County Council were in agreement with the Government in connection with this scheme?
When we come to the financial side of it, it is perfectly true that at that first interview with my right hon. Friend—
as was the case with the associations of local authorities which have raised, as they are quite entitled to do, points affecting the financial structure of the scheme—they made certain suggestions to my right hon. Friend, and those suggestions have received the attention of my right hon. Friend and his advisers. I have the agenda of the London County Council here, and they say, in regard to the finance of the scheme, that the Government have met them with great fairness. As to the statements that there is no provision in London for social services and that there is nothing to advance the health of London, we have only to turn to the agenda of the London County Council itself to look at their figures— and these are not the figures of a partisan majority, because I suppose there is no municipal body in the world that is better staffed and has better experts to advise it than the London County Council. Even in the early days of the scheme, when all our financial arrangements had not been completed with the local authorities, I read in the London County Council agenda that London as a whole will benefit to the extent of approximately £797,000 a year during the first five years' operation of the scheme, and £348,000 and £131,000 a year, respectively, during the second and third five years. That was the original proposal, before further concessions were made. I wonder whether the hon. Members opposite told that to the electors of Battersea on Friday night.

Mr. LANSBURY: Of course I did not. I did exactly what you are doing now.

Sir K. WOOD: Then again, I suppose, for the benefit of Battersea, there is another hare that has been run this afternoon, and that is the statement that the Equalisation of Rates Act has not been taken into account in connection with this scheme, that the London County Council and all their officials have overlooked it, and that (ho hon. Member for Bow and Bromley and his comrades have discovered it. My answer is that the effect of the abolition of the Equalisation of Rates Act is taken into account, and in the calculation of rates and gains under Clause 82, all changes of the Bill are given effect to and the rates of the standard year under the scheme are compared with what the rates would have been on the assumption that all the
changes had been in force in the standard year. Do not let us go down to Batter-sea or anywhere else and say that we have discovered something in which all the figures are wrong and that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley is the only financial expert who has discovered it. That is not so, and London can rest content with the verdict of all three parties on the London County Council that, so far as the administrative side of the scheme is concerned, they are in agreement with it and that, so far as the financial side is concerned, the Government have met them with great fairness.

Mr. NAYLOR: We have had the usual delightful speech from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health; if we except his references to Battersea. I do not know whether coming events cast their shadows before them by causing the right hon. Gentleman some concern as to what is really going to take place at Battersea on the 7th of next month, but? hope his premonitions will be fully justified by the event. I think the right hon. Gentleman was not quite frank with the Committee in his closing statement or else he has rendered himself liable to be misunderstood. There is still some doubt on this side of the Committee as to the incidence of the changes in relation to the operation of the Equalisation of Bates Act, and, so far as I have been able to understand from the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) will be fully justified in going again to Battersea and saying exactly what he said last week. If, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the effect of the formula and of the Fifth Schedule is such as to bring about automatically complete equalisation of the rates, then what can be the objection to leaving the Equalisation of Rates Act still on the Statute Book? Surely its retention is at least a protection to the poorer boroughs of London.
The Parliamentary Secretary made great play of the fact that the London County Council had expressed no opposition to the Clause, but the London County Council raises its own rates through the borough councils, which have not only their own rates to raise, but those of the London County Council. Who then has a more direct interest in the operations of the Equalisation of
Rates Act than the poorer boroughs of London, which have to collect rates on behalf of the London County Council? The same thing applies in regard to Clause 82. The Government come down upon the boroughs which are able to show a gain or a surplus under the formula, and say that as much as they gain shall be taken away by the London County Council for its own purpose. Are we right in understanding from the Parliamentary Secretary that the gain is a gain after taking into consideration all that the borough might have received under the Equalisation of Rates Act? Would the position have been different supposing the gain to the poorer boroughs under the Equalisation of Rates Act had not been taken into account?
In spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said—and he has said nothing definite on this matter yet—in spite of what he has tried to explain about the effect on equalisation of the Bill, and how the Bill would have been affected by the Equalisation of Rates Act, I still maintain that certain boroughs which are now on the list, and which are in the position of gaining under the proposals of this Bill, will, by the elimination of the Equalisation of Rates Act actually incur a loss. The question has been put to the Parliamentary Secretary twice, and I would not repeat it until I had had an opportunity of hearing his answer. It is in consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of his answer that I feel it necessary to put it again.

Sir K. WOOD: How can I say more than that it has been taken into account? I cannot say more than that. I have given an assurance that it has been taken into account, and I do not know what more I can say.

Mr. NAYLOR: The right hon. Gentleman appears to have given a categorical answer, and I understand him to say that, in estimating the gains and losses of the London boroughs, account has been taken of the payments on the one Bide and the receipts on the other of the boroughs under the Equalisation of Rates Act. Is that correct?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, certainly.

Mr. NAYLOR: Also, that all that has been taken into account, not only in regard to the results of the formula, but in regard to the whole operations of the Bill in the financial transactions between the London County Council and the borough councils under Clause 82. Is the answer in the affirmative?

Sir K. WOOD: I had better reply again.

Mr. NAYLOR: I am bound to accept the right hon. Gentleman's answer, and I do accept it, but I must express the hope that he has not been misinformed. I am satisfied on the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary that all that has been taken into account. We object to this Clause mainly on the ground that the need for equalisation of rates may ensue as a result of the incomplete accomplishment of what the promoters of the Bill expect. We would desire to maintain this Act because of the weakness of the human factor in making these estimates of another year. Is not that sufficient for the Parliamentary Secretary, or is he so convinced that it is impossible for his advisers to make any mistake that it is unnecessary to retain the Equalisation of Rates Act? I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary is right, and that things will work out as he says. At the same time, I am still of opinion that it would be an advantage and far safer from London's point of view if this Section of the Clause were repealed.

Mr. GILLETT: I would like to return to the question of the Schedule. I am sorry to find that Battersea seems to be on the right hon. Gentleman's nerves.

Sir K. WOOD: Oh, not at all!

Mr. GILLETT: I was under the impression that my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the right hon. Gentleman had been to Battersea together, and had been having a pleasant time there. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the intention of the Government is that the Equalisation of Rates Act should be taken into account, but it is needless to tell him, as a lawyer, that it is often found that what is the intention of the Government is not what the Act finally says, and we should have been glad if he could have told us
where to find this explained. There is no city in the world where anything like the Equalisation of Rates Act is in existence; therefore, if provision has been made, there surely must be some definite wording which can be pointed out.
I notice that in the early discussion with the London County Council a matter was raised in connection with the standard year. A number of people who are entitled to claim exemption under the de-rating Clauses of this Bill in one or two of the London boroughs, including the one which I represent, have not claimed, and certainly not anything like the numbers who were expected to claim have made claims. The reason apparently in some cases is that, being tenants, they have expected that if they obtained exemption, the landlords would ask for increased rents. Therefore, they have preferred to leave the matter alone. In other eases, they have not thought it worth while to put in a claim. The London County Council, I believe, asked the right hon. Gentleman what would happen if, during the period that elapses between the fixing of the standard year and the present time, a large number of the people who have not put in claims, made claims. Although I have seen a question raised on the minutes of the London County Council, I have not seen the answer of the Minister, and I should be glad to know whether this matter is to be met in any way. I confess that I do not see how it is to be met if we are to have a definite figure decided on in the standard year. Yet report has it that in one London borough 50 per cent. of the claims that were expected—it may have been that the anticipations were mistaken—have not come in. To a certain extent, I understand, this is the case in the borough which I represent.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that all parties on the London County Council have welcomed the abolition of the Poor Law in London, and I agree with it. I welcomed the Measure so far as that question is concerned. But it seems to me, when we look at this Clause dealing with the financial aspect of London, and incidentally with the equalisation of rates, that the de-rating portion of the Measure still remains the most unsatisfactory, for the poorer boroughs of London will lose in a cer-
tain number of cases a very considerable proportion of their assessable value. While it is correct for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government are meeting the difficulties so occasioned, and that these boroughs, many of them in the east end of London, are gaining a considerable sum of money, we overlook what the future has in store. No one imagines that the public services of London have reached the highest point of efficiency, nor that there will not be claims in the years to come for larger sums of money. When this comes about, it will be discovered that the Measure has removed from these boroughs a certain part of their wealthiest centres, and has thrown the burden of further increased expenditure upon a limited portion of the boroughs. In those cases the people who will suffer to a large extent are the shopkeepers and the poorer people.
In places like Westminster, where there are large shops, the council, on account of these premises not being productive but distributive agencies, will still go on drawing their additional rates from the increased assessable value. The fact that places like Westminster are, to a large extent, not being touched in the same degree as the East End of London, is to me the fundamental objection to the financial parts of the Measure, and the de-rating Clauses still form part of the Bill to which I am strongly opposed. I believe that the poorer parts of London in time will suffer under these parts of the Measure. The right hon. Gentleman is cleverly getting over his difficulties by pouring out money to calm down any person who criticises the scheme, and anybody who sits in his seat in five or seven years' time will have to settle the problems that will then be presented. The Committee is content to let the Measure pass on its way for the time being so long as they get money at the moment, but that does not do away with the fact that the fundamental principles on which the finance of this Measure is based are unsound. Whoever occupies the Ministry of Health in five or seven years' time, and finally has to come to some permanent settlement with people who will not be satisfied just to accept a little sum of money to tide them over a few years, will find that the financial ground on which this Measure has been
made is unsound and requires large alterations.

Sir K. WOOD: What the hon. Member has said in general criticism of the proposals on the de-rating side is, of course, applicable to London, but not specially to London. I would like to remind him, because I think it may help to mitigate some of his disappointments, that according to the London County Council itself this Measure does something which, I think, the hon. Member and his party have for a long time advocated, in common with other people, because, as the hon. Member knows, I have followed his utterances for a good many years now. The London County Council say:
It must not be overlooked that a sum of no less than £2,645,000 a year, (as calculated on the figures for the year 1926–27) now borne by the London ratepayers, will be borne by the taxes.
That is, a considerable alteration has been made in the burden as between the national Exchequer and the ratepayers. Until this matter became a controversial one, and the Opposition had to oppose it, I always understood that it was a general understanding of nearly all parties that the ratio of expenditure between the national Exchequer and the rating authorities ought to be altered in favour of the ratepayers. When the hon. Member goes over all the points against the Bill, he ought to keep in mind this very important step in the right direction, which, I am sure, will find support among his constituents in Finsbury. The hon. Member also put to me a question about de-rating claims. It is perfectly true, as he said, that the London County Council and a number of associations

have been to the Minister of Health with regard to the number of claims. I cannot pretend either to confirm what the hon. Member said as to the number of claims or the reason, but there are a number of claims which have not been made, and my right hon. Friend has agreed to meet the request of the London County Council and these associations by putting down a new Clause in which the time for making these claims will be extended. I think that will appear on the Paper in a day or two, and I think it will meet with general agreement from the London County Council and the associations referred to.

Referring to another matter which the hon. Member raised, if he will look at the Fifth Schedule, on page 112 of the Bill, he will see, when we prepare the list of losses of the standard year which we have to apply under this particular Clause, that under paragraph 2 (c) of the Schedule it is to be assumed that the standard year is to be
a year falling within the first quinquennium, and that the provisions of Part VI of this Act, other than sections seventy-six, seventy-eight, seventy-nine, and eighty-two had been in operation.
And, of course, Part VI includes this particular Clause, with which we are dealing. So he will see under what conditions the comparison was made. I hope, with these concluding observations, that hon. Members are now satisfied that London will receive considerable and lasting benefits as a result of this Measure.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 204: Noes. 83.

Division No. 126.]
AYES.
[5.35 p.m..


Albery, Irving James
Brittain, Sir Harry
Clayton, G. C.


Alexander. Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Colfox, Major William Phillips


Astor, Viscountess
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.( Berks, Newb'y)
Colman, N. C. D.


Atkinson, C.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cope, Major Sir William


Balniel, Lord
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Burman, J. B.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Bennett, A. J.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Betterton, Henry B.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H, (Ox. Univ.)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Brass, Captain W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Dean, Arthur Weltesley


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Christle, J. A.
Drewe, C,


Briscoe, Richard George
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Iveagh, Countess of
Rentoul, G. S.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Ellis, R. G.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Chts'y)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Rodd, Rt. Hon. sir James Rennell


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ropner, Major L.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rye, F. G.


Forrest, W.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Salmon, Major I.


Foster, Sir Harry S,
Lamb, J. Q
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Frece, Sir Walter do
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sandon, Lord


Fremantle, Lieut Colonel Francis E.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon, Godfrey
Savery, S. S.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Loder, J. de V.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Ganzoni, Sir John
Long, Major Eric
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Gates, Percy.
Looker, Herbert William
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Laugher, Lewis
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lucas-Tooth. S'r Hugh Vere
Skelton, A. N.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lumley, L R.
Smithers, Waldron


Gower, Sir Robert
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Grant, Sir J. A.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macintyre, Ian
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Greaves Lord, Sir Walter
McLean, Major A.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Greene, W. p. Crawford
Macquisten, F. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hacking, Douglas H.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Hanbury, C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Margesson, Captain D.
Vauahan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Hartington, Marquess of
Meller, R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Water-house, Captain Charles


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon. Totnes)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Haslam, Henry C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Moole, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Williams, A M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquayl


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Hills, Major John Waller
Nuttall, Ellis
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hohler, sir Gerald Fitzroy
Oakley, T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Withers, John James


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wolmer, Viscount


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Womersley, W. J.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hudson, Capt A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Pilcher, G.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Pownall, Sir Aasheton
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Hurd, Percy A.
Preston, William



Hurst, Gerald B.
Price, Major C. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Remer, J. R.
Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Baker, Walter
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Batey, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bellamy, A.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Strauss, E. A.


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Taylor, R. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dennison, R,
Lunn, William
Thurtie, Ernest


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacLaren, Andrew
Tomlinson, R. P.


Gardner, J. P.
March, S.
Townend, A. E.


Garro-Jones, Captain G, M.
Montague, Frederick
Wellock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin.,Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, Walter


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Palin, John Henry
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potts, John S.
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling.


Hardie, George D.
Purcell, A. A.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. LANSBURY: Before we part with this new Clause, I would like to remind the Committee what it really does. As I warned the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman did his best to confuse and belittle the issue, as he usually does. He said that the Government were doing a very beneficent piece of work by unifying the Poor Law system of London. No one denies—and I was careful to say so— that certain of the poor boroughs do receive some amount of advantage from the Bill, but what we do object to, and what I think is a very mean thing, is for the right hon. Gentleman to put into a Bill of this kind an Amendment of the law which has nothing whatever to do with the proposals under the Bill, but which concerns London, and London alone. The Parliamentary Secretary said that I have forgotten, or omitted, or did not know of a certain resolution on which the proposal to repeal the Act was founded. But even if that were true, I do not see what it has to do with the question. The Act which the House of Commons is being asked to repeal is one which assists the poorer boroughs in regard to their health and sanitary administration and other amenities of life. The right hon. Gentleman appears to pour scorn on this argument because these people think in terms of pence, whereas under the Poor Law part of this Bill we are getting assistance in terms of shillings. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that when poor people are dealing with money pence count for a good deal; consequently, I think the boot is on the other foot.
The rich City of Westminster has a rateable value quite 10 times the rateable value of a district like Bethnal Green. The right hon. Gentleman exhibits a delightful humour in regard to our position in this matter, but he refuses on every occasion to face the arguments which are put before him. It is perfectly true to argue that in the natural order of things equalisation of the poor rate has come about at last, but it is equally true to say that the proposal to repeal this Act is one which I do not believe, if it had been put to the people of Westminster, would have been approved. A paltry 5d. in the £ to the people of Westminster is a miserable amount when
you remember that the rateable value of the City of Westminster is £9,000,000. I cannot believe that if this question had been put to the vote in the City of Westminster there would have been anyone except the very meanest of people who would have raised any objection to the continuance of this payment. It is perfectly true to say that by taking away this equalisation rate you will be taking away from Battersea, when this Bill comes into operation, 5d. in the £, and you will in fact give that amount to Westminster. It is because that is so that I call this proposal a very mean proposition on the part of the Government.
Hon. Members who sit on the Labour Benches can do nothing but support any extension of financial responsibility for conditions of poverty, or the need of better health services, anywhere in the country. As I stated, when moving the rejection of this Clause, I am very glad indeed that the Poor Law is going to be dealt with in some measure along the lines that we have agitated. I agree that the scheme put forward is not the one that we should have adopted, but, as far as it goes, one is glad to see what is being done. Notwithstanding that, there is no logic in saying that because you do one right thing you should be allowed to do a bad thing. It is a bad thing to say that the poor local authorities in London should be obliged to bear to the fullest extent the heavy burden of sanitation, the maintenance of roads and other things. When the Tory Government created the 28 boroughs of London, they did a very bad service for the people of London from a financial point of view. We have to face conditions as they are at the present time. In 1894, it was proposed to remedy the evil which the creation of those boroughs had produced by separating them financially into watertight compartments, and that proposal did, to some extent, modify the difficulty that had been created. When the scheme of this Bill is in full operation, places like Battersea will lose to the extent of 5d. in the £ and wealthy and prosperous cities like Westminster will gain 5d.

Mr. SCURR: In the previous Debate, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to what is happening in Battersea, and he made certain statements which, I am afraid, misled the Committee. It is per-
fectly true to say that the three parties on the London County Council are substantially in agreement in regard to certain Clauses of this Bill, but it is not correct to use that argument in regard to the financial Clauses, because there is as much difference of opinion on that subject at the County Hall as there is amongst the three parties in this House at the present time. The Parliamentary Secretary quoted from a report issued by the London County Council, and he mentioned £2,000,000 as a sum which would be gained by London. The right hon. Gentleman declared it to be common ground that the proportion between rate-borne expenditure and expenditure borne nationally should be varied, and he contended that the £2,000,000 mentioned by him was carrying out that idea.
Although it is true that there is a certain amount of agreement in regard to the

variation of the proportion, I would point out that the benefit has been conferred on all ratepayers. Under the Government proposals the benefit will go to a certain select class, many of whom are already in a very prosperous condition. We have heard instances given as to how these proposals will affect certain industries. We have heard of one case where a firm paying 25 per cent. dividend is going to be relieved of its rates under this Bill. If the Government think that proposals of that kind will influence the policy adopted on this side of the Committee, then they are absolutely mistaken. The electors of Battersea are intelligent enough to see through a policy of that kind.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 84.

Division No. 127.]
AYES.
[5.55 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon, C. C. (Antrim)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hills, Major John Waller


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W,
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Astor, Viscountess
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, s)
Hope, Capt. A. O J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Atkinson, C.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Bainlel, Lord
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Crewe, C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hudson, Capt. A.U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiten'n)


Bennett, A. J.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hurd, Percy A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Ellis, R. G.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Iveagh, Countess of


Brass, Captain W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Bridgeman Rt. Hon. William Clive
Forestler-Walker, Sir L
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).


Briscoe, Richard George
Forrest, W
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Foster, Sir Harry S.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Frece, Sir Waiter de
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Knox, Sir Alfred


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lamb, J. Q.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Gates, Percy
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gauit, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton
Loder, J. de V.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Long, Major Eric


Barman, J. B.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Looker, Herbert William


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Gower, Sir Robert
Lougher, Lewis


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Grant, Sir J. A.
Lumley, L. R.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox Univ.)
Greens, W. p. Crawford
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. SirJ.A. (Birm., W.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Maclntyre, Ian


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
McLean, Major A.


Christle, J. A.
Hacking, Douglas H,
Macmillan, Captain H.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macquisten, F. A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hanbury, C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Clayton, G. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harrison, G. J. C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Malone, Major P. B.


Cohen, Major J. Bruael
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Margesson, Captain D.


Colfox, Major Wm- Phillips
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Colman, N. C. D.
Haslam, Henry C.
Meller, R. J.


Cope, Major Sir William
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. l.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Ropner, Major L.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Morrison, H. (Wills, Salisbury)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cilve
Rye, F G.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W


Nelson, Sir Frank
Salmon, Major I.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Newman, Sir R. H. S.D. L. (Exeter)
Sandon, Lord
Watts, Sir Thomas


Nuttall, Ellis
Savery, S. S.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Oakley, T.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Univ., Belfast)
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks.Richm'd)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Skelton, A. N.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Smithers, Waldron
winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Pilcher, G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Withers, John James


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wolmer, Viscount


Preston, William
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Womersley, W. J.


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Renter, J. R.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Rentoul, G. S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)



Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Thomson, F. C (Aberdeen, South)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Stan., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Scurr, John


Baker, Walter
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barnes, A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Batey, Joseph
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bellamy, A.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Briant, Frank
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. w.


Broad, F. A.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Strauss, E. A.


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Taylor, R. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Thurtie, Ernest


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacLaren, Andrew
Tomlinson, R. P.


Gardner, J. P.
March, S.
Townend, A. E.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Montague, Frederick
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gillett, George M.
Morris, R. H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wiggins, William Martin


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ponsonby, Arthur



Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling.

Clause 81 (Additional Exchequer Grants in London) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 82.—(Payment of Supplementary Exchequer Grants in London.)

Amendments made:
In page 65, line 3, leave out the word "fifteen," and insert instead thereof the word "nineteen.
In line 21, after the word "day," insert the words "and each of the four following years."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 65, to leave out from the word "Parliament," in line 31, to the end of the Subsection.
If hon. Members will turn to page 65 of the Bill, they will note that
the deficiency in the revenue from rates resulting in any year to the London County Council by reason of the provisions of the last foregoing paragraph shall be met—
(i) as to one moiety thereof by payments out of moneys provided by Parliament.
In other words, the Treasury is to make good by a special grant the losses due to the provisions of this Clause. It would be out of order for me, as a private Member, to suggest, much more to move, that the half there referred to should be altered to the whole, but, if we were considering what was right and proper, it would be obvious that the Government
should make good the whole of the loss. Paragraph (ii) says:
(ii) as to the other moiety thereof, by debiting to each area as respects which a gain is disclosed an amount proportionate to the amount of that gain and by increasing the amount which would otherwise be contributed as aforesaid by the area by the amount so debited.
In other words, those districts that sustain losses are going to be relieved of the responsibility for Poor Law and other services, and those which are going to gain under the Government formula, that is to say, those which are going to receive some slight increase, are to be asked to make good those losses out of their rates.
When you begin to study the natural result of the addition of rates, you find that the boroughs that are going to have an addition to their rates are all very rich boroughs with very high assessable values. The result is that, although there is an addition to their rates, yet, owing to the very considerable produce of a penny rate, the actual increase under a scheme of this kind will be comparatively small. I think I am right in saying that in the City of London and in the City of Westminster the effect of this Amendment would only amount to an increase of about 1d. in the £, but, although I have already pointed it out, it is worth repeating that actually in practice the boroughs that are to find the other half of this money, which ought to be found by the Treasury, are the very poorest boroughs, with the lowest assessable values, with the largest amount of unemployment and with difficult problems to solve. The total amount which is to be found by these very poor boroughs is £224,000. £32,000 is to be found by Bermondsey, £22,000 by Bethnal Green, £12,000 by Deptford, £15,000 by Greenwich, £79,000 by Poplar, £51,000 by Stepney, and a smaller amount of some £8,000 by the constituency which the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary represents with such distinction in this House. That money is to be collected from these very poor boroughs. They are to present £48,000 to the City of London. Does not that seem unreasonable and monstrous? The poor City of London is so poverty-stricken, so hard up, that it has to be relieved of the obligation of contributing to the equalisation fund, and then has to go round cap in hand to the poor boroughs in London
and ask them to make good the losses entailed upon it by the Government's scheme. I think that that is quite outside any reason or any justification.
The City Corporation is rolling in wealth—almost stinking with it. Besides the ordinary sources of revenue it has others, not only in other parts of London, but also in other parts of the country. It has the City estates which are increasing in value and which bring in something like £250,000, and it has other private funds, like the Bridge House Estates, into which it can dip to help it over its difficulties. Its pockets are so full of cash that it can provide £28,000 for the Lord Mayor in order that he may go for joy-rides in beautiful coaches through the City of London and give magnificent banquets. If it were so very hard up, surely it would be better for the City Corporation to indulge in some economies and divert some of its funds from its estates to helping its rates, instead of having to go round with the aid of the Government to collect £48,000 from places like Bermondsey, Bethnal Green, Poplar, Greenwich, Deptford and Woolwich. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will, for a moment, cease to be a Minister and become a London Member, and stand up for the not very or sperous district of Woolwich. Perhaps he "will put in a good word for Woolwich, with all its difficult problems, which to-day require quite as good services—quite as good sanitation and quite as well-lit streets—and needs to be looked after just as well as the City of London. I do say that, if the Government cannot see their way to find this money out of the Treasury—the source from which it ought to be found—it should be found out of the county and not out of the local rates. It should be spread all over London and distributed evenly, instead of these poor, over-rated districts being singled out.
It is no use the Minister riding away and saying that it is a very great advantage to the common folk that the poor have become a common responsibility over the whole of London. That is a very poor consolation to the municipalities of London who have a hard struggle to make ends meet and to find money to carry on their services out of their rates. Their rates will still be very high. The rates of Woolwich are certainly not going
to be lowered under the Government's scheme to any very large extent; at any rate, I think it will be admitted that they will still be much too high. It is true that Bethnal Green will get some relief owing to the Poor Law becoming a common responsibility, but we shall still have a rate of over 15s. in the £, as opposed to 9s. 2d. in the City of London, and Poplar also will still have a similarly high rate in comparison. I suggest to the Minister that he should see if he cannot do this in a better way. If it is not possible to get money from the Treasury, arrangements should be made for the bearing of the responsibility for this deficiency by all the ratepayers of London, instead of by a few.

Mr. SCURR: The proposal before the Committee in this Clause really shows the fallacy of the whole scheme of the Government. If the scheme had been conceived with the idea of holding the balance of justice equitably between the various interests involved, and if it were a fair question of transferring certain burdens from the local authorities to the national Exchequer, the whole of London would have come out quite fairly and squarely, and there would have been no necessity to import this new scheme into the arrangement. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has referred to the fact that the poorer boroughs of London will suffer very badly by reason of the Government's proposals, but there are other boroughs which might not be described as poor, but yet would not be described as rich, and which also would suffer considerably if the Government's scheme, as originally put forward, were carried through. I cite, for example, Hackney, with an increase of £26,600, Islington, £49,400 and Lambeth, £57,200. Those three boroughs cannot be included amongst either the poorest or the richest. So inaccurate has been the Government's method, that the result of its proposals would be that, approximately, there would be an increase thrown on certain boroughs of £468,000 and a decrease on others of £584,800. We have to meet that increase in the boroughs that are suffering.
If there is going to be a fair arrangement the boroughs should not have their rate increased, but the amount ought to come from the Treasury and not, as
half of it will, from the poorest boroughs. For example, if we take the actual figures, we find that in the City of Westminster it is only a matter of a growth of £54,200, but this great wealthy City of Westminster is going to receive a Treasury grant of £27,100 which is to be spread over the other boroughs in order to make up the sum. When we remember that a penny rate in Westminster brings in £39,000, it is really an absurdity to suggest that in any circumstances an arrangement of this kind is necessary. I find that the City of London will come cap in hand to the Treasury, and will receive £24,000. How easy it is for the House of Commons to find £234,000 from the Treasury in order to benefit the richer boroughs of London and we have heard earlier to-day that £150,000 voted for the miners has not even been handed over to the fund to which it belongs. It shows all the way through how the present Government are much more concerned in looking after the vested interests of their friends than the interests of the common people. Right the way through whichever borough you look at you find this absurd new idea entered into, the equalisation fund taken away and a new method brought in whereby between the Treasury and the county council rate, the poorer boroughs have to subscribe in order that the rich boroughs may escape any increase in their rate. It is a scandalous method of dealing with the question. No one can really see what is going to be the effect of the scheme when the seven years are over, particularly as the result of the de-rating proposals, and if the matter had to be dealt with now, the only way is by a complete and full Treasury grant, letting the rich boroughs bear their own responsibility.

Mr. GILLETT: I think the mistake of the Government in regard to their proposals for London is that they have compared London with a county. Legally, of course, London is the London County Council and, therefore, in Clause 76 they devised the idea of supplementary Exchequer grants for the counties. When they came to London they went on the assumption that London, legally a county, is a county in fact. As a matter of fact, when we think of a county we do not think of a body like the London County Council. In a county like Yorkshire, Lancashire or Bedford-
shire you have a number of towns and districts. Under this Measure some of these districts are being divided up, perhaps one being taken and joined to another. As I understand the main idea of the Clause, the proposal for adjustment was made because of alterations, which may possibly be beneficial, and which are bringing together part of a county which had been divided to other parts which were easier to manage for administrative purposes. When you come to deal with London you are not dealing with anything like a county. Nothing of this kind happens in Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool, because they are cities. There are no proposals in the Bill dealing with the great cities on the lines now being laid down for London. From the time London was cut up into boroughs to the present the poorer parts of the City have continued to suffer. The Government have not grasped this fact. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) points out that his constituents are being asked to pay a large sum of money to the City of London. The City of London has always got off exceedingly well compared with other cities, because actually it is not a city but only a part of a great city. If the City Corporation in bygone years had had as much vision and foresight as Birmingham or Liverpool, they would never have agreed to these borough councils. They would have expanded, as Birmingham has expanded, and we should have had a very great city. The misfortune has been that the City of London has been guided by men with very small views in the past. It did not expand when it ought to have expanded, and London has suffered in its government in consequence.
When you ask Bethnal Green to make this payment you go on the supposition that Bethnal Green and the City of London have not a very close connection. As a matter of fact the City, until recent times, to a large extent escaped the responsibilities of the Poor Law. I agree that this Measure removes one of the injustices from which London has suffered, but it does not by any means remove a large number of injustices. The City is able to go on with its work because hundreds of thousands of people living in these different boroughs whose necessities are ministered to by places like Bethnal Green, Finsbury, Islington
and St. Pancras, and whose tragedies of life, such as ill-health, are to a large extent falling upon the locality in which they live, go to work in the City, which gets a vast amount of man power and gets the advantage of it. Therefore, I think the Government will find it exceedingly difficult to defend these provisions when they look at them from the standpoint I am suggesting. I can quite understand that the Minister, with the idea of Birmingham in his mind, possibly has not realised it, but the Parliamentary Secretary is very much to blame, because he is a London member. He knows perfectly well, as an old member of the County Council, the extraordinary subdivisions of London. He knows that the City of London is only possible because of all these other boroughs that are round it. He knows that the work of the City of London is going on because of the provision made by these other boroughs for people who are working there. He might have pointed out to the Government that London is really a city and not a county. He has failed to do so, and it is a great misfortune for London. It is on that account that no defence can be made to these proposals. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends have muddled up London with a county simply because it is the name that has been given to it. If the late Mr. Ritchie had only called it some other name than "county" the Government might have been saved from this mistake, but Mr. Ritchie, when the London County Council was brought into existence, thought it might exist for a few years and then some new scheme of London Govemmont might come in. Unfortunately no Government have been prepared to tackle it, and therefore we still muddle up the idea of London, which is a city, with a county. It is, to my mind, impossible to consider its problems in the same way that you do those of rural counties, and the Government should leave out provisions of this kind, which are obviously such a hardship upon the poorer boroughs.

Sir K. WOOD: We are now passing to another part of the Bill which deals with the application of the Measure to London. We have just disposed of the general Exchequer grant to London, and I notice that the whole of the Socialist and Liberal parties voted against the grant being given to London. We now
come to the payment of the supplementary Exchequer grants. A powerful Opposition, numerically supported as we see it before us, has expressed its indignation against these proposals, headed by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). We are applying the same principle of supplementary Exchequer grants to London as we are doing to the other counties. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) has made a new Socialist discovery, that apparently, London is not a county. In applying the principle of supplementary grants to the boroughs of London, as we do to other districts, I suggest that we are doing the proper, right and fair thing. The principle is that for a transitory period before the scheme finally comes into operation we should have an arrangement which would ease the burden as far as those who lose are concerned, and that during that period those who gain shall come to the assistance of those who do not. It is bearing one another's burdens. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green says, "Look at the Lord Mayor! Look at the banquets he gives! Look at the wealth of the City!" Then he placards Bethnal Green at Election time and says, "Vote for Harris and put the Socialists out." Such are modern politics. I should have suggested that inasmuch as Bethnal Green is receiving considerable assistance under the Bill, it is not unreasonable— and I believe Bethnal Green itself would not object—that it should give some slight assistance to localities which will lose. No one has come forward, either from the London County Council or from the metropolitan boroughs, complaining of this and saying it is not the proper thing to do. This part of the scheme is generally considered as a reasonable and just method of dealing with a temporary period and, as such, I commend it to the Committee.

Mr. LANSBURY: Speaking for myself, I rather enjoy the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman "ticks off" his opponents and evades the real issue. I have never known him get down to the arguments of his opponents. I understand that to be one of the gifts of a good lawyer, and I congratulate him on possessing it, though, perhaps, not in as great a degree as his colleague the
Attorney-General. The right hon. Gentleman has chaffed the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), and, in some degree on the last Amendment he chaffed me on the ground that we are behaving grudgingly in not falling over ourselves to show our gratitude for what the Government are doing for us in this Bill. The Bill is like the curate's egg. It is good in parts; but some parts of it are bad, and if I could use the appropriate expression I would say that those parts were "so-and-so" bad. This part is particularly bad. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about "bearing one another's burdens," but I have never known that Lazarus was called upon to bear the burden of Dives; and that is what is happening in this case. The right hon. Gentleman talks as though we wanted to load on to the poor, overburdened and almost starving ratepayers of Westminster something almost too heavy for them to bear. I would remind him that the poorer parts of London bore the whole of this burden for many years past, and that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House never bothered their heads much about it then.
When the borough councillors of Poplar were in prison over this very issue, Parliament left them there and did not trouble very much about it. A tempopary Measure was introduced and the promise was made at the time that it would be followed by a permanent Measure. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would claim that the Government are now implementing that promise. My complaint is that they are partially doing so. For at least five years the poorer boroughs are to give back part of the advantage which they gain, not from de-rating but from the unification of Poor Law administration. The right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to contradict that argument and it is perfectly simple. At long last, after years of Socialist agitation, and years of crying out for redress by the poorer boroughs, the Government have said that they will make the Poor Law service a centralised service paid for out of a central fund. When education was transferred to the County Council, or when the Education Acts were first imposed, nobody dreamt of splitting up the cost between one district and another according to rateable value. But that is happening in connec-
tion with this proposal. It is, in short a proposal to revert partially to the old bad system which the Government claim credit for repealing in this very Bill.
It is true that when the Poor Law is administered centrally, and all the responsibility is in the hands of the county council, the poorer boroughs will gain. Poplar will gain 8s. in the £, but according to this proposal, they will pay back for five years four of those shillings. We think that is quite inequitable both from the financial and the administrative points of view. In previous discussions, both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have said, again and again, that if there is central money there ought to be central responsibility and that we have no right to spend other people's money without allowing the other people to have control. Now that principle is being reversed. The Government are going to take part of our money and spend it through a central authority, instead of allowing us to spend it ourselves. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary talks as though we were doing a grave injustice to people who could not bear the burden we were putting upon them. Why, the burden is infinitesimal to Westminster, or the City of London, or Holborn, or St. George's, or Kensington. But it is considerable to Poplar.
I repeat that, as a result of the derating Clauses of this Bill, when we come to carry out new work to provide social amenities for our people, the cost to the ratepayers who are left in our borough will be considerable. It is to be remembered how every increase or decrease of rates, as now levied, affects the people. If we got complete relief in places like Poplar, Bethnal Green, Stepney, South-wark, Rotherhithe, and so on, the people who would benefit most would be those living in one or two rooms, or in houses for which they have to pay up to 18s. and £l per week. The rents of the council houses in industrial parts of London are almost too high for even the best paid workers. That is partly due to the rates. Yet the Parliamentary Secretary and his chief tell us that we ought to be grateful, because we are getting this 4s., and that we ought to be very glad indeed that the other 4s. is going to assist our poorer brethren—as
they are pictured to us—in Westminster and other places.
There is a further fact which the right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to meet. Westminster will only lose £250,000 out of its £9,000,000 of rateable value under the de-rating scheme. That is because it is not an industrial borough. If Westminster wants to carry out a big constructive work it will have the major part of its rates to draw upon after this scheme has been passed. But Poplar is in no such position. I can smile with other hon. Members at the Parliamentary Secretary making fun of myself and of others in connection with this matter. But in the district from which I come not a single slum area has been dealt with except by the local authority. The London County Council, controlled by friends of hon. Gentlemen opposite— controlled by Tories for the last 25 years —has left every slum standing in Poplar. The poor people there have been struggling with that problem for 25 or 30 years. If we attempt to deal with it out of our own rates after this Bill has been passed, then, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite knows better than his supporters, our financial ability to do so will have been reduced by 25 per cent.
At present we are badly supplied with clinics, and with maternity and child-welfare centres because of our poverty. The right hon. Gentleman knows that with our rateable value and with the money at our disposal we do the best we can. By "we" I mean the council. I take no credit for it, but I know that my friends down there are doing the best they can, and the Government are going to cripple their efforts by this Bill. Even if we admit everything which the right hon. Gentleman says about the money, and about the advantages we are going to get through the equalisation of the poor rate, he must be aware that all our new expenditure will have to be levied on a rateable value which has been cut down by 25 per cent. This year alone we are losing because of the de-rating machinery. People in this House who are accustomed to deal in millions do not seem to realise that the taking away of £60,000 worth of rateable value under that scheme means a terrible burden to small shopkeepers and poor workmen. Instead of being grateful, those of us who for years have been
fighting for the equalisation of the Poor Law administration in London and the equalisation of the costs, have a right to protest, in connection with a proposal of this kind, against part of the advantage being taken away from us for at least five years, and then one-fifteenth for each of 15 further years. We have a right to protest against the proposal that for 19 years we are to bear with this sort of partial equalisation.
We are entitled to say that this proposal, coupled with the fact that under the de-rating scheme every penny that we want to spend on slum clearances, on extending maternity and child welfare schemes, on the provision of baths and wash-houses, on new roads, on improving the conditions in our districts—and Heaven knows they want improving!— must be levied on a rateable value which the right hon. Gentleman by this Bill is reducing by 25 per cent. on certain properties in the borough. We ought not to be reproached because we object to this proposal, and we ought not to be told to accept this proposition, BO that we may bear the burdens of Westminster and so that we may bear the burdens of the City of London. It is contemptible to discuss the matter in that spirit. I have nothing but contempt for those who have proposed that the Treasury should not find this money. If the Treasury wished to placate the opponents of the Bill, they ought to have footed the bill and ought not to have put the cost of the bill on the shoulders of those least able to bear it.

Miss LAWRENCE: The feeling of unreality which has crept over the proceedings on this Bill is a strange thing. What has happened is that in London the parties concerned, the contributing boroughs, the receiving boroughs, the London County Council and the Ministry of Health, have fought each other to a standstill, and the whole matter is being left over for a future Parliament to decide. We remember that earlier in the year the London County Council felt alarmed and said that the scheme would cost them about £1,000,000 a year. They went to the Minister and received an assurance, which other districts have received, that everything would be right, that the guarantee would be increased and that nobody would lose more than
1s. per head of the population, which is, roughly speaking, a penny rate in the County of London. The contributing boroughs, the receiving boroughs and the boroughs which have benefited under the Poor Law arrangement, also had long and stormy battles with each other and with the Minister, and the matter for the next three or four years has become a stalemate. The County of London contributing boroughs and paying boroughs, and the rest of them, are to be withheld for a short period of years from the full operation of the scheme. A new Clause has been put down providing that there shall he an elaborate inquiry, before the end of the second grant period, into the working of the block grant, and the Schedule, and the rest of it. That means that the parties have fought themselves to a deadlock, and that the whole matter is reserved for the consideration of a future Parliament.
When first I read the Bill and considered this financial proposition in the light of a permanent settlement, I was full of the most lively emotions. I was ready to argue and to stump the country against the formula, against the block grant and so on, and I was ready to speak against it in the House for hours at a time; but now I feel that what this Parliament does is a matter of very little importance, that the pa-ties have come to a sort of truce for two or three years and that the matter will then be referred to a future Parliament. In addressing this Parliament I am addressing not the final court of appeal, but merely a court of first instance. I do rot say that from any mere political point of view.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member is getting a little away from the subject of the Amendment. So far, hon. Members have kept somewhere near it.

Miss LAWRENCE: My point is, that neither the Amendment nor the Clause become of very much practical importance in view of the arrangement come to in the County of London, and the promise of reconsideration by Parliament. All that I desired to say was rather in answer to a remark of the Parliamentary Secretary that there were not very many hon. Members present. I do not wonder that there are not many hon. Members present. In addressing this Committee, I do feel a certain sense
of reality. I find myself much more talking to the Parliament that will come after the Parliament that sits here to-day. There is no covert sneer in what I say. I do not mean that in six months from now my face will be turned the other way when I address the Chair. I do not say that, although I shall miss many faces that have grown endeared to me here by familiarity. If this Parliament were at the beginning of its term, or if the new Parliament were composed of precisely the same Members as this Par-

liament, the work would have to be done again; it is, therefore, almost a waste of Parliamentary time to discuss the details of this scheme, which will never be put into operation, because we know that the structure of the Bill is to be revised by a subsequent Parliament.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 100.

Division No. 128.]
AYES.
[6.50 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Knox, Sir Alfred


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Drewe, C.
Lamb, J. Q.


Apsley, Lord
Eden, Captain Anthony
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Ellis, R. G.
Loder, J. de V.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Long, Major Eric


Astor, Viscountess
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Looker, Herbert William


Atkinson, C.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lougher, Lewis


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Balniel, Lord
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Lumley, L. R.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Frece, Sir Walter de
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gates, Percy
Macdonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Bennett, A. J.
Gauit, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macintyre, Ian


Betterton, Henry B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Major A.


Bevan, S. J.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Boothhy, R. J. G.
Gower, Sir Bobert
Macquisten, F. A.


Brass, Captain W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Grant, Sir J. A.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Briscoe, Richard George
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Meller, R. J.


Brocklebank, C E R.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hamilton, Sir George
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hanbury, C.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nelson, Sir Frank


Burman, J, B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hartington, Marquess of
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cassels, J. D.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nuttall, Ellis


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Oakley, T.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Haslam, Henry C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Penny, Frederick George


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Christle, J. A.
Hills, Major John Waller
Pilcher, C.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Clarry, Reginald George
Hohler, sir Gerald Fitzroy
Preston, William


Clayton, G. C.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Remer, J. R.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rentoul, G. S.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rhys, Hon C. A. U.


Conway, Sir W Martin
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cope, Major Sir William
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hurd, Percy A.
Ropner, Major L.


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Iveagh, Countess of
Rye, F. G.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Salmon, Major I.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sanderman, N. Stewart


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon Sir William
Sandon, Lord


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Savery, S. S.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Dawson, Sir Philip
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir w. Mitchell-
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Skelton, A. N.
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Smithers, Waldron
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Withers, John James


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wolmer, Viscount


Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Water house, Captain Charles
Womersley, W. J.


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Watts, Sir Thomas
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wells, S. R.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)



Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Captain Margesson and Captain Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scurr, John


Ammon, Charles George
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bellamy, A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Stamford, T. W.


Briant, Frank
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Strauss, E. A.


Bromley, J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sullivan, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Taylor, R. A.


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cove, W. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Thurtie, Ernest


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lunn, William
Tinker, john Joseph


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Townend, A. E.


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.- Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Morris, R. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Forrest, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wiggins, William Martin


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.
Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr. Percy Harris.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Purcell, A. A.



Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 105.

Division No. 129.]
AYES.
[7.0 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Alexander, Sir Win, (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S,
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Apsley, Lord
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Cope, Major Sir William


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.( Berks, Newb'y)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Astor, Viscountess
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Atkinson, C.
Burman, J. B.
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Balniel, Lord
Cassels, J. D.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Drewe, C.


Bennett, A. J.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Eden, Captain Anthony


Betterton, Henry B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bevan, S. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Ellis, R. G.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Christle, J. A.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Brass, Captain W.
Churchman, sir Arthur C.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Clarry, Reginald George
Everard, W. Lindsay


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Clayton, G. C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Briscoe, Richard George
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Lamb, J. Q.
Rye, F. G.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Salmon, Major I.


Ganzoni Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Gates, Percy
Loder, J. de V.
Sandon, Lord


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Long, Major Eric
Savery, S. S.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir John
Looker, Herbert William
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lougher, Lewis
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Gower, Sir Robert
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Shepperson, E. W.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lumley, L. R.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Grant, Sir J. A
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ, Belfst)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Skelton, A. N.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Smithers, Waldron


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macintyre, Ian
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gunston, Captain O. W.
McLean, Major A.
Southhy, Commander A. R. J.


Hacking, Douglas H.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A (Brecon & Rad.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hamilton, Sir George
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hammersley, S. S.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Storry-Deans, R.


Hanbury, C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Harrison, G. J, C.
Marqesson, Captain D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hartington, Marquess of
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Meller, R. J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Haslam, Henry C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hills, Major John Waller
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hoare, Lt -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Watts, Sir Thomas


Hohler, sir Gerald Fitzroy
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wells, S. R.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Newman, Sir R. H, S. D. L. (Exeter)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nuttall, Ellis
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Oakley, T.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Penny, Frederick George
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hurst, Gerald B.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Withers, John James


Iveagh, Countess of
Pilcher, G.
Wolmer, Viscount


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Womersley, W. J.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Preston, William
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Rentoul, G S.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Rhys, Hon. C. A, U.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Rice, Sir Frederick



King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ropner, Major L.
Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morris, R. H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R, (Orkney & Shetland)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Ammon, Charles Georqe
Hardle, George D.
Mosley, Sir Oswald


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Harris, Percy A.
Murnin, H.


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Naylor, T. E.


Barnes, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Oliver, George Harold


Bellamy, A.
Hirst, G. H,
Palin, John Henry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Purcell, A. A.


Compton, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)
Rlison, J.


Connolly, M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Runciman, Rt. Hon, Walter


Cove, W. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Scurr, John


Crawford, H. E.
Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, James


Dennison, R.
Kennedy, T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Duncan, C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dunnico, H.
Lansbury, George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Forrest, W.
Lee, F.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gillett, George M.
Livingstone, A. M.
Stamford, T. W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)
Lowth, T.
Stewart, J. (St, Rollox)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lunn, William
Strauss, E, A.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mackinder, W.
Sullivan, Joseph


Griffith, F. Kingsley
MacLaren, Andrew
Sutton, J. E.


Groves, T.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Taylor, R. A.


Grundy, T. W.
March, S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H, (Derby)


Hall, F. (York. W.R., Normanton)
Montague, Frederick
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)




Thurtie, Ernest
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Windsor, Walter


Tinker, John Joseph
Wellock, Wilfred
Wright, W.


Tomlinson, R. P.
Wiggins, William Martin
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Townend, A. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)



Wallhead, Richard C.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watts-Morgan, Lt Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.

CLAUSE 83.—(Contributions by councils to voluntary associations in respect of maternity and child welfare.)

Amendment made:
In page 66, line 5, leave out the word "quinquennium," and insert instead thereof the words "fixed grant period."?—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Sir LESLIE SCOTT: I beg to move, in page 66, line 5, after the word "quinquennium," to insert he words "after consultation with approved voluntary associations."
Very shortly the point is this. Under Clause 83 the essence of the scheme obviously is that the local authority should consult with the voluntary associations doing maternity and child welfare work. The manuscript Amendment which I have handed in imposes a statutory duty upon the local authorities to consult with the approved voluntary associations before framing the scheme. I suspect the Minister's reply will be that it is of the essence of the scheme that the local authority shall in every case consult the voluntary association before forming the scheme to submit to the Minister, but we all know that local authorities vary in outlook, and perhaps even vary in quality, and that some take more interest-in the subject than others, while some may even be indifferent. It occurred to me that probably, if that was expressed as a statutory obligation upon local authorities, it might be an advantage and it would certainly allay some degree of anxiety felt to-day by a good many of those who are really interested and keen in this work. I therefore move this Amendment, and the approved voluntary associations referred to in it will be defined by a later Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving me notice that he proposed to move this Amendment. I note his prescience in anticipating the answer I shall give him. It is perfectly true that it is unnecessary to put these words in here, because it is quite impossible—I think it must be obvious—for any county
or county borough to prepare a scheme of this kind without consulting the voluntary associations. They are to have a scheme in which they are to secure the payment by the councils of contributions towards the expenses of the voluntary associations. They must find out what those expenses are going to be, and they can only do that by consulting the voluntary associations. They must know, not merely what the voluntary associations have been doing, but also what they propose to do and are capable of doing. I cannot conceive the possibility of the submission of a scheme without their having first consulted the voluntary associations. There is an additional security, for the voluntary association has always the power of making representations to the Minister, and these schemes cannot become operative until the Minister has given his approval Therefore, if the impossible were to happen, and a county council or county borough council were to submit a scheme without having consulted the voluntary associations, who were the subject of the scheme, it would be quite open to them to represent to the Minister that they had not been consulted, and that in the scheme proper account had not been taken of their purpose or their finance. I am quite certain that the Minister would at once send the scheme back for consultation. I hope my right hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press this Amendment.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend has said, but I do not think it quite answers the case. It is conceivable that some authorities will make their schemes without adequate consultation with voluntary organisations. May I give my right hon. Friend an instance in which an obvious case for consultation has been provided for? The relief of freights was to be carried out in consultation with the railway companies, with no consultation at all with the shipping interests interested in these rebates. Now that representations have been made, my right hon. Friend is ready to go back on what has been done. We
do not want these voluntary associations to be in the same position with the local authority when, in due course, it frames its scheme and either forgets or neglects to consult the people who are most particularly concerned. If the Amendment only emphasises what my right hon. Friend thinks ought to be done, I cannot see any objection to putting it in the Bill.

Sir L. SCOTT: After what the Minister of Health has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. GERALD HURST: I beg to move, in page 66, line 28, at the end, to insert the words:
and shall have power to include in the scheme provisions whereby—

(a) contributions towards the costs of inmates in a maternity home within any county or any county borough may be required from and enforced against the council of any other county or county borough where any inmate normally resided before entering the maternity home;
(b) arrangements can be made for the exchange by and between two or moro counties or county boroughs of the liability to take inmates into maternity homes; and
(c) the duty of periodical inspections of maternity homes may be vested in officers of the Ministry of Health in lieu of or in conjunction with officers of the council of any county or county borough."
The object of this Amendment is to widen the ambit of the scheme provided in Clause 83. As it now stands, the assumption is that the scheme is a narrow local one. The rates affected are the rates of the county or county borough, and the benefits are the benefits of the people living in the county or county borough. Prima facie the whole ambit of this Clause is local. According to the information I have, a large number of maternity homes are not run on local lines at all, and it seems to be essential, if the scheme is to meet their needs, that it should be based on a wider foundation than consultations and the making of schemes between the Minister and the county or county borough. To illustrate how very wide is the influence of these maternity homes, I have had figures given to me by the Manchester branch of the Society for the Unmarried Mother and her Child, with regard to one of the Manchester homes, and of the last 60 eases which have come to that home only 15 are
local. Twelve have come from Cheshire, 12 from Derby, four from Nottingham, three from Shropshire, and there are also cases from Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Wales, Leeds and Lincoln.
The reason is that people with a view to secrecy prefer to go to maternity homes long distances away, and that seems to me to be a very sound idea with a view to the proper use of maternity homes. If that is so, and if it is important for maternity homes that a much wider area than that of a mere town should be considered, then the language of this Clause seems to be narrow, and in order to enable the Minister in proper cases to form a scheme on larger lines my Amendment would give him power to include in the scheme paragraph (a), whereby contributions towards the cost of maternity homes in any county or county borough may be required and enforced against the council of any other county or county borough. It is a matter of doubt whether the language of the Clause is sufficiently wide to cover contributions from areas other than the area of the county or county borough mainly concerned. That is the object of paragraph (a) of my Amendment. The object of paragraph (b) is to provide for the exchange of patients between distant areas, the main motive, being to encourage women to go to these homes without incurring the scandal of local publicity.
Paragraph (c) of the Amendment means this. Assuming, as I think is the fact, that the working of these maternity homes is not local in any sense, but national, it does not seem unreasonable to ask that the scheme should lay emphasis upon visits by representatives of the Ministry of Health rather than visits by members of a local authority. I have been told by those in charge of these maternity homes that they would prefer to be under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Health. Probably under the Bill they would have to put up with inspection by officers of the local authority, and it seems right, therefore, that, if possible, the duty of periodical inspection should be on the Ministry of Health in lieu of or in conjunction with the officers of the county or county borough. I do not think the Amendment in this respect is in any way out of harmony with the object of Clause 83. I am
not absolutely certain that the language of the Clause is wide enough to cover these particular points. It is doubtful whether it covers paragraph (a) and paragraph (c) of the Amendment, but, whether that is so or not, it seems right that this particular aspect of maternity homes should be emphasised, and that the Minister should be empowered to make provision for the wants which have been expressed by a large number of these maternity homes.

Miss LAWRENCE: I recognise fully the excellent intentions of the hon. And learned Member who has moved this Amendment. He is trying to meet a difficulty which has distressed these charitable societies more than any one thing I can remember, but I am very doubtful whether his proposal goes far enough. I am going to give my reasons why I think the Amendment, though very well-intentioned, will not remove the fears which have been expressed by these charitable organisations. Charitable organisations interested in voluntary health services have been besieging hon. Members to help them from the operation of this Clause. I have in my hand a resolution from the Council for the Welfare of the Unmarried Mother and her Child. It could not be more strongly worded. I have also resolutions from various other charitable associations all over the country, from Shrewsbury, from Shaftesbury Home, in London, and from other places, and also a resolution from the British Council for Social Hygiene. I leave the view of those societies interested in the question of venereal disease to other hon. Members. I want to put to the Committee what it is that distresses so much those who have the care of these maternity homes, and to explain why the Amendment does not really meet the situation.
There are a great number of charitable societies concerned in the care of the mother and her child. They deal mainly with that class of mother who does not go to the workhouse, that class of person where the fear of discredit is so great that the danger of child murder or abortion is very serious and real. The central feature of their work in dealing with this class of patient is secrecy. At the present time they have homes in
different parts of the country, and the essence of their practice is to send people from one part of the country to another part right out of their own circle and home, as far away as possible, and they do this in order to enable the mother to get over her period of distress and make a fresh start in life, and have a little quiet time in which to learn to love her baby. The important thing is to get her away from local gossip, very often to get her away especially from the family itself. I cannot put it more strongly than it has been put in the words of some of these maternity homes. They give particulars of various cases in which they emphasise two things. First, they put the case that where the father is a married man it is necessary to get away from the locality; and, secondly, the fear of the girl of her own relations and even her own father.
In the case of maternity homes conducted on these lines there is no such thing as a local association. They are more in the way of national homes, and the last thing they want is to come under a scheme made by the local authority. At present they get their grant very often 50 per cent. direct from the Ministry. If they come under the local authority there would be raised immediately such questions as whether the institution did serve this or that local authority. The Minister of Health has had a long correspondence with the Association. They give many cases similar to that given by the hon. and learned Member who has moved the Amendment. He gave cases from Manchester. There are cases in London, institutions in London, where the bulk of the patients come from outside. They come from all over the country. These maternity homes say that if they come under the local authorities they would have to prove that their institution was of value to the ratepayers of that or some other locality, and the idea that the local authority in the area might make inquiry from other local authorities with a view of getting some scheme put forward would, they say, be the deathblow to their institutions. They say quite frankly that local authorities are not sympathetic enough, and give reasons for saying that they are not the property or the protege of any local authorities. The number of these institutions is not large. Accord-
ing to the last figures there are only about 100 or 150 of these homes.
We cannot here discuss what is proper and necessary in cases which are so difficult; and where only the actual practice can show what is wanted. The work is very much more difficult and more complicated than is imagined. It is much more difficult than any work which local authorities commonly do. It is not a thing which you or I or any amateur can argue. It is not a small thing that these people, who are as opposed to politics as any set of people in the world should be are now running into politics as it were. Some time ago, the Minister, speaking of other women's associations, said that such associations often passed resolutions on the first sight of a Measure; and that to use his words they "did not stay put." Here those interested in the mothers and children have had a long correspondence with the Minister, and after hearing all that he has to say, and after acknowledging that he has spoken to them in an extremely sympathetic way, have said that they are still of opinion that the provisions of the Clause will upset their work. Cannot the Minister reconsider the matter and put down a new and separate Clause to meet the claims of these societies? Let him take this little scrap of work, which is not very much in terms of money, right out of the Bill and give it a separate grant. Charitable people are alarmed, and they know their own business best.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: After the speech to which we have listened my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. Gerald Hurst) will realise that his Amendment is not altogether appropriate to the circumstances and the particular cases which he desires to assist. It could come into operation only where the council had failed to submit a scheme. The most important paragraph of the three in his Amendment is the first, which provides that
contributions towards the cost of inmates in a maternity home within any county or any county borough may be required from and enforced against the council of any other county or county borough where any inmate normally resided before entering the maternity home.
It is true, as the last speaker has said, that the homes which my hon. Friend has particularly in mind are the homes
which are carried on by the Society for the Unmarried Mother and her Child— homes which are frequently filled, to a large extent, with inmates who do not come from the locality in which a home is situated. That is not accidental but deliberate, and for reasons which have been stated. They are reasons which would appeal to anyone who knows the peculiar circumstances of these very distressing cases. It is desirable that these cases should not be attended to in their own immediate neighbourhood, but should be got away as far as possible from their surroundings and from all the disadvantages and handicaps which must be present so long as they remain in their own area. Therefore it would be a mistake to make it more difficult in any way for these homes to take in inmates from other localities and to do anything which would tend to cause them to take only the inmates from their own districts. But it would be a tall order to lay it down that the council of a county or county borough must make a contribution towards the cost of maintenance of someone who had resided in that county and had chosen to go into a home. That is going rather far.
While I could not accept the Amendment, because I do not think it would carry out the purpose my hon. Friend had in view, I would like to say a word about the suggestion that we should take these homes right out of the scheme. What I think the hon. Member opposite has not appreciated is this: In the past a direct grant has been given by the Ministry to the homes or to a society in respect of them. That grant is to be discontinued, and is to be given to the council of the county or county borough in which the home is situated. There-fore, it is not for that county or county borough to say, "We ought not to contribute to this home, because it is taking people who do not belong to our own area." They are to be given the money which previously had been given direct to the home. I do not see why the county and the county borough should go to some other locality and ask it to contribute to the cost of the inmates in their home. They have been given the money, and they should recognise that the whole scheme of not taking in one locality people who come from that locality is a good one; and they should recognise, further, that the people in
their area should not be accommodated in their home but should go somewhere else. It must be a reciprocal arrangement between the various authorities. I do not see any reason for making a change in this particular case.
Let me say a word on the second paragraph, which says that power shall be given to make arrangements for the exchange by and between two or more counties or county boroughs of the liability to take inmates into maternity homes. This is unnecessary, because there are these powers already. With regard to the third paragraph of the Amendment, which refers to "periodical inspections of maternity homes being vested in officers of the Ministry in lieu of or in conjunction with officers of the council of any county or county borough," I cannot help wondering whether my hon. Friend is under the impression that the inspection of the Ministry is to be stopped. The inspection by the Ministry of Health officers will not be dispensed with. These visitations will continue, and any scheme will certainly provide that the Minister will send his inspectors from time to time to inspect these homes, if he thinks fit.

Viscountess ASTOR: Suppose some of these authorities do not want these homes. That is very likely, because they are very peculiar homes and are not things in which local authorities are particularly interested. They are almost entirely run by voluntary associations. Suppose that the authorities do not want the homes. What is to happen then? The Minister, I think, takes too rosy a view of the local authorities.

Miss LAWRENCE: Let me read what the Minister of Health stated in a letter to a voluntary association:
At the same time it is clearly desirable that the local authorities of other areas from which women are admitted to the home should contribute towards their maintenance, and it may be expected that the local authority responsible for the supervision of the home will endeavour to secure that such contributions are made.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Let me try first to answer the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). If she will read the Clause carefully, she will see that the situation she refers to cannot arise. However much I trust the local authorities, I am not leaving them with entire discretion to
support or not support these homes. Every local authority must make a scheme. The Clause goes on to say that the scheme shall provide for the payment to any such association, whose services were immediately before the appointed day approved by the Minister, of such annual contribution in respect of those services as may be specified in the scheme. It is impossible for a local authority to say: "This home has gone on very comfortably hitherto without a grant from the Minister, and we are not proposing to give any grant, because we do not care about these homes and would rather spend the money somewhere else." That discretion is not given. There is really no ground for apprehension on that score. That is not the policy of the Government. I cannot say that one local authority may not, by agreement with another local authority, receive a contribution from it in respect of people who are coming into its home. If it chooses to do that and the other authority is agreeable, there is nothing to prevent it. It would be a much better policy if each local authority were to carry on the home in its district without regard to whether the people in that home come from the locality or from any other locality.

Mr. KELLY: I hope the hon. Member who has proposed the Amendment will not press it for the reasons which he has himself given for it. If he presses his Amendment, and any case arises from another district, then he is to give all the publicity to the case. The moment they have one of these cases entering the home, the local authorities would have power by the Amendment, to ask for a contribution from another authority. Without dealing with any other point in his Amendment, I hope that, in order to prevent such publicity, he will not press this Amendment.

Captain O'CONNOR: I must say that I share with the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence) some of the apprehensions which she expressed. I know that people who are engaged in this work are afraid that their efforts are to be hampered in two ways, partly by the loss of the help they have hitherto received from the Ministry, and partly by the alteration of procedure which will make it necessary to indicate the local authorities from which patients come. They are afraid of what may occur, and
I hope the Minister of Health will take into serious consideration that aspect of the matter. I did not entirely follow his answer, because he was suggesting that, this being a discontinued grant, it would be replaced to the authority which previously had the spending of it. That, I think, is not so. It would be hardly fair to say to any particular authority that they were receiving an equivalent of this particular grant. I could conceive very serious objections being raised, for instance in the case of Highgate, where one of the homes is situated. Supposing a local authority there is called on to provide for maintaining unmarried mothers who do not come from Highgate at all, there may be very serious and reasonable objections from that authority. If there were objections from the local authority, the only way in which the society could get its funds would be by communicating possibly with the many different areas from which these mothers were drawn.
For my part, I confess I think their apprehension that the secrecy which they have hitherto enjoyed will be lessened is a reasonable one. I am sure the Minister will agree that the problem of reducing infant mortality in this country is very largely the problem of dealing with illegitimate children. The illegitimate infant death-rate is, of course, very much higher than the legitimate infant death-rate, and to that extent the problem of infant mortality is interlocked with the problem of dealing with illegitimate children. I hope that the Minister will regard this as being in the nature of an exceptional case for which he ought to find a corner within the Bill.

Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: I should like to support what my hon. and learned Friend has said about this Amendment. I too rather misunderstood the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. It gave me the impression that this was primarily a book-keeping transaction; that the county council merely had to hand over to the home in another area a portion of the money which they would receive from the national Exchequer. But that really is not quite the case. Whether or not there is a home in that particular area is not taken into account. It would not have got a penny less if the home were not there.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is correct.

Mr. HARRIS: I hope this matter will be cleared up. I was very much impressed by the statement of the Minister of Health. Apparently, he is fully conversant with the needs of these homes, and the necessity of taking a large view of their functions, irrespective of the district where they are located. I have mentioned already on another Clause one of those homes, situated in Bethnal Green, which is a very poor borough, and, as I pointed out, the bulk of the women who go there come from all parts of the country. I do think it ought to be made clear in this Clause that the county council or local authority should be under the obligation to take a large view of its responsibilities, and not to feel that its obligations are limited to look after patients from their own area.

Mr. LESTRANGE MALONE: There seems to be general unanimity that something more ought to be done by the Government for these homes, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health that the simplest way would be to accept the Amendment which stands in my name to the Second Schedule of the Bill. In the Second Schedule there is a list of discontinued grants, and there are certain grants which are excluded from that list. I do not suppose that more than £20,000 or £30,000 are spent in these homes. I am thinking of a certain maternity home in the suburbs of Northampton. I have not been able to ascertain what the block grant in Northampton is to be. For some reason, the Ministry of Health has not made any estimate of that grant. When I turn to the White Paper which was published by Mr. Collins, the accountant to the Association of Municipal Corporations, I see that Northampton loses £56,275. I want to know what guarantee we are to have that this money which is lost is not to affect the maternity homes.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Something which I have said appears to have given rise to some misapprehension. Of course, it is not true to say that this is a bookkeeping transaction, but, on the other hand, it is equally untrue to say that it makes any difference to the grant to the county or county borough whether they have a home which shall receive a grant from the Ministry or not. For seven
years they will get 75 per cent. of the grant; for another five years 50 per cent., and for a further five years 25 per cent. Therefore, while it is quite true that they will not for all time get the full amount of grant which is given to the home direct, for seven years they will get 75 per cent., and I think that will go a long way to supply the services which have hitherto been supplied.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, In page 66, line 36, to leave out the words "so provides," and to insert instead thereof the words:
provides for such contributions being made by the council of any district, a copy thereof shall be sent to that council by the county council when the scheme is submitted to the Minister and.
This and the next Amendment are machinery Amendments to facilitate the process of completing schemes. The object is to secure that in the case of county council schemes where any district councils will contribute towards the maternity and child welfare association, the district councils shall have notice. The following Amendment gives the district councils three months' notice in which to prepare a statement of their claim.

8.0.p.m.

Mr. MALONE: The Northampton County Council has prepared a scheme which presumably it is about to submit to the Minister of Health for an increase in the maternity services commencing next year, that is, after the end of this financial year. I believe the estimated cost of this scheme is something like £10,000. If that expenditure had already been incurred, it would be provided for under the scheme, but it is an estimate for the future, and I should like to know how provision is to be made for it.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it a voluntary association?

Mr. MALONE: Yes. I pointed out on an earlier Amendment that the county of Northampton is losing £56,000 odd under the scheme. How are they to provide for this extra £10,000 that they have made tentative provision for next year?

Sir K. WOOD: As I understand it, it is a voluntary association which desires to go in for extended work or to start new work, and I think the hon. Member will find that that is dealt with in a later Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 66, line 38, after the word "Minister," insert the words:
within three months after the receipt of the said copy."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 66, line 41, at the end, to insert the words:
(5) If upon representations made by any voluntary association it appears to the Minister that the association proposes to provide or to extend maternity and child welfare services in or for the benefit of a county or county borough subject to contributions or increased contributions being made to the association under any scheme for the time being in operation under this Section and that it is, therefore, expedient that any such scheme should be altered, the Minister may, after considering the representations in consultation with the council of the county or county borough, so alter the scheme as to provide for such contributions or increased contributions, as he considers just and may also make such consequential alterations, if any, as he considers desirable in any scheme mode under this Section by the Council of any district affected.
This is a new Amendment, which I think will meet the case put by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone). It has been represented to my right hon. Friend that there may be cases where a voluntary association starts during a particular period such as that mentioned by the hon. Member or desires in some way to extend its work. The association would only be able to appeal to the local authority during the grant period and would really be dependent on the authority as to whether or not it should receive financial assistance in respect of its scheme, and there was no provision in the Bill in such a case for the Minister to act in the matter at all. Therefore, we are providing in this Amendment, in order to meet the desires of the voluntary associations concerned, that if they should desire to start or to extend their work it should be open to them to make an application to the Minister of Health and to say, "We want to start work in this district," or "We want to do something further in connection with our scheme." In such a case, power is given in this
Amendment for the Minister, after consultation with the local authority concerned, to say, "Satisfy me that this is work which ought to be done and that some contribution ought to be made in connection with it," and then the Minister can say to the local authority, "Amend the scheme so as to give the necessary financial assistance." This is a matter which has been pressed very strongly upon the Ministry, and this Amendment, so far as I can judge, meets the case satisfactorily. I believe it does give satisfaction to the associations concerned. With this Amendment and the original Clause in the Bill, we give a very strong position to the voluntary associations that are carrying out this work.

Miss LAWRENCE: These voluntary institutions are not local associations; they are national. You have an association, in a locality, but taking its inmates from perhaps 60 other authorities. Supposing the grant is increased by 75 per cent., the association then wants to extend its work, and it is work which ought to be very much extended to make any impression upon the death-rate of illegitimate children. Every penny of the new money will have to come out of the money given to local authorities for their own health work, for their own roads, for their own share of the fixed revenue, and for their own loss of rates. Local authorities are very jealous of their own funds, and I would remind the Committee that the bulk of the new money given to them is by way of compensation. They have their own work to do, and they will be much more zealous in pushing their own work than in supporting work which has nothing to do with them and with which they are not themselves really concerned. It is obvious, therefore, that every extension will meet with opposition from the local authorities and that instead of being able to go to the local authorities and prove their case and get 50 per cent., it will be a case of forcing schemes upon reluctant local authorities, and it may well he that the Bill will prove to be the death-knell of many of these voluntary associations. I am not yet satisfied with what the Minister said with regard to the one authority communicating with another. I cannot but think that these associations are in a desperately dangerous condition, and their work is so peculiar that I beg that even now the Minister might consider
whether he cannot possibly move this business altogether out of the grant, take it away from the amount granted from the council which has never had it before, and administer it centrally as before.

Sir K. WOOD: Anyone who gives fair and impartial consideration to this proposal must know that the voluntary associations are amply secured under this Clause and Amendment, and I should say —Sand I will submit it to the arbitrament of any impartial person—that they are in a much stronger position under the Bill than ever they were in their lives before. I have only attempted to continue this discussion because of the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence). Her fears have no foundation whatever in fact, because under this Clause and under the Amendment which I have just moved the voluntary associations are not left in the hands of the local authorities at all. Incidentally, I do not assent for a moment to the indictment of local authorities up and down the country which has been implied by the hon. Member. The voluntary associations, I say, are amply secured under this Clause. Under the original proposal of my right hon. Friend, which was perhaps abold and extreme step to take, it is left to the Minister of Health himself to determine the assistance which should be given to these homes and associations which are already in existence and doing their work, and to secure to them, at any rate, the grant which they are receiving at present from my right hon. Friend; and when an hon. Member gets up and talks about the associations being in jeopardy, and ignores altogether the large sums of new money which is being given them to carry on their work, I say it is a travesty of the Clause and an insult to my right hon. Friend.
These associations said, "Suppose we start new work, where shall we be? We might in such a case be left in the hands of these local authorities," of whom we hear so much; and it was in order to meet that case that we said, "If you do start new work, we will not leave you in the hands of the local authorities, but we will give you power to go to the Minister of Health and say, We are about to start new work, and we want to make representations to you about it, and we want you, if you are satisfied that our
new work is going to be valuable from the point of view of the locality to have power to alter the scheme.'" Really, I wonder that the local authorities have not got up and said that this is a very considerable power to give to the Minister of Health, because we are giving him power under this Clause actually to alter the scheme, to revise it, and to say that if an association begins new work, he will direct that it shall receive assistance. Under these circumstances, I say that it is ridiculous for anyone to get up and say that it is the death-knell of voluntary associations and that they are in great jeopardy. I quite agree with what my hon. Friend below the Gangway on this side and the Noble Lady behind me have said with regard to the proposals in this Bill relating to voluntary associations which are carrying on this excellent and noble work, that they have no reason to complain of the proposals made by the Government.

Viscountess ASTOR: I only want to say that I am very grateful to the Minister for moving this Amendment, which does meet a fear on the part of the voluntary societies. All of them with which I have had to deal have told me that their fears have been met, and I am deeply grateful. I think that what the hon. Lady the Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence) was talking about was the previous Amendment, not this one at all: I think she was talking about the homes for unmarried mothers. I am certain that the voluntary societies with which I have been in touch feel that their fears have been removed, because they have now a chance of extension under the block grant, which they had not got until this Amendment was put down.

Captain O'CONNOR: I agree entirely with the Parliamentary Secretary that this Clause is a tremendous weapon in the hands of the Minister. The voluntary associations have not realised how much power the Minister has taken to himself under this Clause. Local authorities may realise this when it is too late, and when an advanced Socialist Government comes in and tries some wild schemes and invokes Clause 83 to give them sanction. This is also an important concession by the Minister and carries things a very long way, but, agreeing with all that, and partly because I agree with it, I do
not think that the particular case of the Unmarried Mothers' Society is met under this Amendment because of the formidable nature of the innovation introduced by this Clause, which must depend to a very large extent upon the goodwill of the local authority. You will not be able to strain that goodwill unduly, and I submit that you would be unduly straining it if you said to the local authorities, "Here is a maternity home in your midst which is maintaing, not your illegitimate children, but illegitimate children from all over England; this useful work is expanding, and, simply because it is situated in your midst, you have to prepare a scheme which provides for an increased sum of money to meet its requirements in the coming year." That would indeed be straining the goodwill of the local authorities and for that reason, if for no other, I think that the Minister ought once again to take heed to counsel and consider whether the very narrow requirements of this particular society, which I do not think can be met under the Bill, ought not to be met in some separate way such as was suggested by an hon. Member from the other side.

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: So much apprehension regarding the future of the maternity and child welfare services in this country has been expressed by voluntary societies that, even at the risk of wearying the Committee, it is desirable before we leave this Clause and this particular Amendment, to indicate again to what an enormous extent the Minister has met all apprehensions that might have been expressed. Voluntary societies were apprehensive in the early stages of the discussion on the Bill that although Clause 83 might be useful in securing adequate consideration for a scheme in regard to the services that were in existence at the date of the passage of the Bill, it did not provide for extensions. The Minister has explained that by the concession that he has made, and which we are now discussing, apprehension has been removed. What has been the result? Voluntary associations, when discussing this matter, are very apt to give the impression that they are not very numerous, but, when one comes to look at the position in the country, if I am not misinformed, one finds that with the possible exception of one, every county in the Kingdom has a voluntary
association at work dealing with maternity and child welfare. That being so, it means that every county, with this possible exception, will have to put up a scheme covering the whole of the county for maternity and child welfare services. As the Clause has been amended, it provides for a further extension of the services, and, therefore, every county will be covered. In regard to the county boroughs, with the possible exception of 20, they all have voluntary associations. Therefore, every county borough with the possible exception of those 20, will have to put up a scheme to the Minister covering not only present services but future extensions.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the hon. Member agree that under the Bill the Minister has the chance of bringing up those county boroughs that were only doing a half of what they should do, and that he has a chance that he really never had under the percentage grant system?

Mr. HUDSON: That is precisely what I am trying to point out. There are three sets of people to deal with. There are the counties, and I have shown that those, with one exception, are covered by Clause 83, under which they have to put up a definite scheme. Then there are the county boroughs which, with the exception of 20, have voluntary associations and, therefore, every county borough, with the exception of these 20, has to put up a definite scheme dealing not only with the present service but future increases of the service, and the Minister has power to say that the increase shall be granted by the council. The only people with whom we are concerned are the remaining county boroughs, 20 in number, which have not associations. Almost every one of these boroughs have maternity and child welfare services, and they will come under Clause 86. With the Amendments which the Minister has put on the Paper, he will have power under that Clause to see that these county boroughs carry out their work adequately and efficiently with due regard to the welfare of the inhabitants. We may sum up the position by saying that the whole of the counties and the county boroughs will be adequately dealt with under the extremely great powers which the Minister has taken, powers quite unprecedented so far as voluntary associations are con-
cerned, and that as regards the remaining 20 county boroughs, we can leave the question until we come to the discussion of Clause 86.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I only want to add a word to say that my name and that of the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) were down to an Amendment earlier on this Clause, but I purposely did not move it because this Amendment covered the same ground. I tabled the Amendment because the Clause did not provide for the future expansion of this service. It was put down on behalf of the Midwives' Institute and the Queen Victoria Jubilee Institute for Nurses. These professional bodies, which are largely neglected by public opinion, are at the bottom of the working of these maternity associations, and they will, I believe, be abundantly satisfied by this Amendment, which seems to me to cover the substance of the Amendment which I was moving, and also other points which I had in mind. I hope there will be a possibility of covering now for the first time the whole of the counties with the work of the County Nursing Associations in nursing and midwifery, work which has been extending, but extending slowly, and I hope, speaking on behalf of the midwives that the Clause as amended will be successful.

Mr. SIDNEY WEBB: I do not want to join in the chorus of apprehension or the chorus of praise, but I rise to ask a question, because I do not quite understand how this is going to work. My question relates to one of these homes which is not local, but receives inmates from all over the Kingdom. Under the Amendment to Clause 83, the Minister, assuming that the home is going to be extended, has the power to call upon the council of the county or county borough to pay the necessary increased grants to this enlarged home. I am still not quite clear how this power is to be operated. Is the Minister taking power to call upon the county council or the county borough council within whose area the home happens to be situated to give an increased grant which may be necessary to provide for inmates who may come from 50 different counties, or is he going to call upon each of those counties and county boroughs to pay an increased grant in proportion to the number of inmates from their counties who are in the home? If
it means that the Minister will call upon the particular county or county borough to pay that extra grant, it seems to me to be a very strong power to give him. I see the wording speaks of
services in or for the benefit of the county,
and that leads me to wonder whether a more equitable plan may not have been in the Minister's mind, and that he is going to call upon each of the counties and county boroughs, and I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell me which it is proposed to do. It would be a simple matter to make a particular county pay for the whole of the services, but it would be rather a strong measure to take. This may seem rather a quibbling point to raise, but it is the basis of the apprehensions which the non-local institutions are feeling.

Sir K. WOOD: The answer is that the call will he made upon the county or county borough in whose area the home is situated. I would say in answer to the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward that all these matters are very largely in the nature of reciprocal arrangements. If a home in one county is serving people who come from another area., so it will be found that there are homes in other areas which are being used by people from that particular county, and thus one gets a fairly good working arrangement between the different counties. The reason why people from one locality go to a home in another locality is quite an understandable one connected with a desire to avoid exposure and to secure a certain amount of secrecy. I think that on the whole it will be found that the arrangement will be fair.

Captain MACMILLAN: While a number of the points which have been raised have been satisfactorily met, I feel I must agree that this arrangement does represent the excise of a very stringent power by the Minister. After all, the number of non-local institutions is limited to these particular services. It is not as if there were a great number of these non-local services. I wish the Minister would consider whether some provision should not be made to avoid the dilemma out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb). I feel there will be dissatisfaction if an authority
has to provide more money in order to secure benefits for people coming from other parts of the country. The Parliamentary Secretary says that these obligations will cancel one another out among the counties. That might be so if the incidence were the same in all cases, but it appears to me to be almost inconceivable that that should be so, because there will not be as many homes as there are authorities. I think the Minister might consider whether a service of this limited and rather peculiar character might not be dealt with separately.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:
In page 67, line 2, leave out the word "quinquennium" and insert instead thereof the words "fixed grant period." —[Sir K. Wood.]

Captain O'CONNOR: I beg to move, in page 67, line 3, after the word "councils" to insert the words "and voluntary associations."
This is a manuscript Amendment. Its effect, if it were adopted, would be to require the Minister to consult with voluntary associations as well as with councils. It has been put down at the request of some of the voluntary associations. I do not put it forward as an Amendment of very radical importance, because I feel that in practice such consultations will take place, but I am informed that voluntary associations are apprehensive that they will be excluded from the consultations and I submit it in order to get the Minister's views on the subject.

Sir K. WOOD: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, I have had no opportunity of considering this Amendment. It is one which affects only the London Sub-section, but if the voluntary associations are to be taken into consultation that will have to be done in other parts of the country as well as in London. I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member and to the Committee that it would be more convenient if I were allowed time to consider his suggestion between now and the Report stage. I could not take the responsibility of accepting the Amendment without giving it more consideration than has been possible up to now.

Amendment negatived.

Consequential Amendment made.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 84.

Division No. 130.]
AYES.
[8.35 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nelson, Sir Frank


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Apsley, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nuttall, Ellis


Astor, Viscountess
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Oakley, T.


Atkinson, C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Balniel, Lord
Hacking, Douglas H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hamilton, Sir George
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hanbury, C.
Pilcher, G.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bennett, A. J.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Preston, William


Betterton, Henry B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bevan, S. J.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remer, J. R.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Haslam, Henry C
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brass, Captain W.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ropner, Major L.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hills, Major John Waller
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.
Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard
Rye, F. G.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Salmon, Major I.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hopkins, J. W. VV
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hudson, Capt. A.U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Sandon, Lord


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Savery, S. S.


Burman, J. B.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H,
Shepperson, E. W.


Cassels, J. D
Iveagh, Countess of
Simms, Dr. John M (Co. Down)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sinclair, Col.T.(Queen's Univ.,Belfast)


Chamberlain, Rt.Hon. N. (Ladywood)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon Cuthbert
Skelton, A. N.


Christle, J. A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Clarry, Reginald George
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clayton, G. C.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H,


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Storry-Deans, R.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Colfox, Major Wm Phillips
Lamb, J. Q.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Loder, J. de V.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lougher, Lewis
Wallace, Captain O. E.


Crookshank, Cpt- H.( Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lumley, L. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col.A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davidson, Rt. Hon J. (Hertford)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Dawson, Sir Philip
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Maclntyre, Ian
Wells, S. R.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
McLean, Major A.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Drewe, C.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macquisten, F. A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon. Torquay)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Margesson, Captain D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Everard, W. Lindsay
Meller, R. J.
Withers, John James


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wolmer, Viscount


Forrest, W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Womersley, W. J.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C


Fremantle, Lieut.-Coloe Francis E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moreing, Captain A. H.



Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gates, Percy
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Major Sir William Cope and Mr. Penny.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cluse, W. S.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Compton, Joseph
Groves, T.


Ammon, Charles George
Connolly, M.
Grundy, T. W.


Barnes, A.
Cove, W. G.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Batey, Joseph
Dennison, R.
Hall, G. H (Merthyr Tydvli)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Duncan, C.
Hardle, George D.


Broad, F. A.
Dunnico, H.
Harris, Percy A.


Bromley, J.
Gillett, George M.
Hayday, Arthur


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Stamford, T. W.


Hirst, G. H.
March, S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morris, R. H.
Sullivan, J.


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sutton, J. E.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Thurtie, Ernest


john, William (Rhondda, West)
Murnin, H.
Tinker, John Joseph


Junes, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Naylor, T. E.
Townend, A. E.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oliver, George Harold
Wallhead, Richard C.


Jones, T. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Palin, John Henry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Kelly, W. T.
Paling, W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Kennedy, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Potts, John S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lansbury, George
Purcell, A. A.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lawrence, Susan
Ritson, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lee, F.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lowth, T.
Scurr, John
Windsor, Walter


Lunn, William
Sexton, James
Wright, W.


Mackinder, W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


MacLaren, Andrew
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)



Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

CLAUSE 84.—(Contributions by councils to voluntary associations in respect of other health services.)

Amendment made:
In page 67, line 15, leave out the word "quinquennium" and insert instead thereof the words "fixed grant period."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Consequential Amendment made.

Sir L. SCOTT: I beg to move, in page 67, to leave out from the word "undertake," in line 29, to the end of line 31, and to insert instead thereof the words:
to provide, centrally or locally, services for the welfare of defectives, including the ascertainment, assistance, or supervision of defectives whilst not in institutions.
The Sub-section in question provides for the continuance of grants to associations assisting in the work in connection with mental defectives in this country. The Committee probably know of the Central Association for Mental Welfare, to which are affiliated all the voluntary associations in the country dealing with that work. That body was founded in 1913, the same year in which the Mental Deficiency Act was passed, and it has been conducting this work all over the country ever since that date. I have had the privilege of being its chairman from 1913, and the work has been carried out on uniform lines having local associations coterminus in their areas of activity with the areas of the local authorities concerned in the work. Owing to the War intervening, the amount of work that has had to be done by the local associations has very much increased, largely on account of the difficulty of finding money for the local authorities and providing the institutional accommodation
which, for many types of defectives, is the best.
The Central Association, in addition to doing a certain amount of work in the direction of supervising and assisting, has also organised many services in connection with mental deficiency, such as training courses for visitors, for institutional superintendents, for doctors, and even to the extent of assisting magistrates in their work; and it has regularly had grants from the Government through the Board of Control, unlimited as to the extent of the services for which the grants are given, under Section 48 of the Act of 1913. That Section is drawn in very general language, which has permitted of the Government giving us assistance for all the various activities which we carry on, although many of those activities are practically speaking self-supporting; there has been no difficulty in connection with Government grants to us on account of any technical limitation in the language of the Section which enables the grants to be made. The Ministry of Health and the Board of Education have both been continuously good to my association, and have spoken of it always in very high terms, on account of the very rigid economy with which the work is done and the efficiency of the services rendered. On behalf of the association I have been very proud to receive those complimentary expressions of opinion.
Under this Clause in the present Bill, some of us feel some doubt as to whether there may not be a limiting interpretation upon this Sub-section (2) which would have the effect of limiting the services for which grants under the Subsection might be given. This is impor-
tant because certain, though very few, of the local authorities have taken a narrow view, where they have been in contact with our associations, that it is desirable to limit the work of the voluntary associations to what may be called assistance to the local authorities, excluding that type of mental deficiency work which does not come within the Mental Deficiency Act as work to be done by the local authority. Those who are familiar with the problem know quite well that a very large proportion of the work that is done in this country to-day —the best work—is work which does not come actually within the Act at all, and is, therefore, not within the powers of the local authorities. The grants by the Government have been given largely to assist us in doing that extra-statutory, that non-statutory work. We want to make sure that under this Clause there shall be no limitation upon the character of the work to be done which is to be covered by grants as allowed under this Sub-section.
I hope I have made the point clear to my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill. It is a matter of practical importance. Although I am sure he will not ask me to give the names of the local authorities in question, I could give the names of one or two which definitely take the view that the work of the voluntary associations ought to be limited. That, in my view, is a profound mistake. The country has had very good value, for these small grants to us, out of the voluntary work that is not within the scope of the activities of local authorities. The Committee will observe that the Clause as it is drawn in the Bill lays down that grants may be given under the scheme
to voluntary associations which undertake the duty of assisting or supervising defectives whilst not in institutions.
Leaving out for the moment the word "assisting," and dealing with the question of supervising, supervising is a statutory duty imposed by Section 30 of the Act of 1913 upon local authorities in respect of defectives who are liable to be dealt with under the Act. They come into different categories, such as those who have committed crimes, those who are in want, and so on. That is a purely statutory function. "Assistance" is a wide general word describing what is not in itself a statutory func-
tion, but it does not cover the whole work, or may not cover the whole work, that is done by the voluntary associations. For that reason I have suggested in my Amendment the substitution of the words:
to provide, centrally or locally, services for the welfare of defectives, including the ascertainment, assistance, or supervision of detectives whilst not in institutions.
I realise, as we all realise, that the results of this Measure in the future will depend very largely upon the way in which it is worked both by the central authority and by the local authorities, and comparatively little on the precise legal signification of the words of the Section, because there is very little ground for thinking that it will often occur that the test of the law court will have to be applied to the Measure. Therefore, it may be that we should be safe in accepting the: wording of Subsection (2) as it stands if we can get a perfectly definite assurance across the Floor of the Committee from the Minister in charge that, under the Bill when it becomes an Act, there will be the same elasticity in the grants to the voluntary associations, central and local, as there is to-day. I am satisfied that nothing could be better than the way in which the work is carried on if we can get a perfectly definite assurance that there will be no limitation in the future, in which case I, speaking for the moment as a lawyer, would be willing to rest on the word "assisting" as sufficient to indicate under the Section that it is not intended in any way to limit the grants to work done by way of assistance to local authorities as distinct from work which is outside the scope of the activities of the local authorities under the Act of 1913; but, unless the. Ministry have a definite objection to putting in these words, I certainly, both as a lawyer and as a person who since 1913 has had the privilege of being at the head of these organisations which have worked so well, would very much prefer to see these words inserted.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): No one has a better right than my right hon. and learned Friend to present the views or the fears which he has expressed. His record and his interest in the matter abundantly qualify him to ask for the assurance which I am glad to be able to give him.
He is aware that the Sub-section in question has been drafted strictly in accordance with the terms of Section 48, which is the existing statutory authority for the payment of the sums which the central association, of which he is chairman, has been in the habit of receiving. The Clause has been drafted not with the least intention of altering the scope of the work that can be done and in respect of which the grant is to be paid, but merely for the purpose of ensuring that the payment will in future be made not by the Minister but by the Council. The statutory duties that are performed by the local authority under Section 30 of the Act of 1913 -will continue to be performed by the local authority directly or through voluntary agencies, and when voluntary agency is used the payment to be made for services rendered to the local authority is a matter of mutual arrangement. But so far as the payments are concerned which have been made hitherto under Section 48, they will now be made under Clause 84 (2) of the Bill and I shall give in the most explicit terms the assurance my right hon. Friend desires and, on the whole, I think it is better that the Clause which has now to be put into the Bill should follow strictly the language of the Section which my right hon. Friend has been able to say has allowed the system to work with smoothness and with satisfaction to those concerned.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Consequential Amendment made.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I beg to move, in page 67, line 40, at the end, to add the words:
(4) The Minister shall, before the beginning of each fixed grant period, make a scheme providing for the payment by councils of counties and county boroughs of such amount as may be specified in the scheme to the central council of an approved organisation which provides services, in the nature of general publicity and educational propaganda, in furtherance of the prevention and treatment of venereal disease.
9.0.p.m.
I regret very much indeed that it is necessary to move an Amendment of this description. I am a fairly wholehearted believer in the Bill as a whole, and I am convinced that, except in this one case, the voluntary associations gain undoubtedly by the Bill and by the concessions that have been made. Why it
was necessary to take a course which will destroy to a very large extent the activity of one of the voluntary associations which has done a very large amount of work in connection with the public health of the country I do not know, because the work that has been done by the British Social Hygiene Council is work that has been recognised not only by the Government but also very definitely by the Royal Commission upon Venereal Disease, and it is work which has been carried out, at any rate since 1916 when this burden was cast upon it, with expressed satisfaction from the Minister. The position is a somewhat peculiar one and is quite different in one sense from any of the other matters that are dealt with in this or any of the Clauses dealing with voluntary associations. The treatment of venereal disease is not a thing which local councils find it popular to advertise. It is not a thing that makes an opportunity for the making of sentimental speeches or getting support on those grounds, but it. has been realised with increasing force of late years that the effective treatment of venereal disease and, what is infinitely more important, its prevention, by social propaganda is one of the most important of the works in connection with health service. While other health services have been strengthened, in my opinion, under this Bill this is a respect in which a good many of them are being seriously endangered. The services in connection with maternity and child welfare, mental defectives and the blind will be materially affected if anything is done that diminishes the efficiency of the measures that are take on for the prevention of the curative treatment of venereal disease. The work of treatment is carried on under the Venereal Disease "Regulations of 1916 through clinics established by the local authorities. The Royal Commission reported in that year that an essential part of the work of those clinics was the work of propaganda, the work of disseminating knowledge both as to the circumstances under which venereal disease was acquired and as to the absolute necessity of immediate treatment and, in addition to that, the dissemination of knowledge as to the effects and consequences not only upon the generation which acquires the disease but on the generations that come after. Not only that nut, having
regard to the fact that this was very definitely a hidden scourge, the Royal Commission recognised that the only effective way of carrying out treatment was that there should be such publicity as would leave no ground and no room for ignorance on the part of the population. The Royal Commission has definitely said:
We recognise that the measures that we propose will need for success more than legislative and administrative measures taken by the Government. Continuous and consistent efforts will be required to keep the complex question of combating venereal disease before the public mind and to secure the constant assistance of the voluntary agencies concerned in prevention and rescue work.
They add:
We hope that the National Council"—
that is the predecessor of the present Hygiene Council—
established with this object will become a permanent and an authoritative body and will keep on spreading knowledge and giving advice in regard to this question in its varied shapes and that it will be recognised as such by the Government.
Following upon that Commission the Council was recognised, and from time to time grants have been made for the publicity and propaganda work which that Council has carried on. In the first place, one part of the work has been to stimulate local authorities to carry on propaganda and publicity within their own areas, but it has always been recognised that publicity and propaganda work within a council's own area cannot be carried on effectively without the assistance and co-operation of a central and a national body. The Royal Commission saw that this was a national matter and that the national Press as a whole was the place in which to secure the greatest publicity in this respect. How has the work been done? In the first place, the Royal Commission recognised that knowledge could not be disseminated without appropriate literature. They recognised that the literature must be very carefully supervised. If there is no supervision of literature concerning a matter of this kind, there is the grave danger that it will be used, subtly, to provoke immorality rather than repress it. There is also the danger that it will lead to inadequate treatment and an inadequate understanding of the position. The Royal Commission sug-
gested that literature dealing with these questions should require the imprimatur of some national body, and the body which was designated by them was the National Council for Combating Venereal Disease.
Apart from all that work, other educative work has to be undertaken. It can be undertaken, for example, by films and there is no doubt that a very large amount of work has been carried on by that means. There is very clear proof that wherever these films have been exhibited there has been at once a definite increase in the amount of advantage taken of the clinics provided. That does not indicate any growth of the disease; it indicates the thing which is really required, namely, that people suffering from the disease should place themselves under proper treatment. It is impossible for local authorities to organise film production. This can only be done by a central body which is able to rely upon sufficient support to make it possible to get somewhere near to the class of production and exhibition of films required. It calls for expert personnel and the films must be shown in a proper way and to the proper people. Shown indiscriminately, films of that kind may do much more harm than good.
Then, again lectures must be supervised by a central body. It is idle to think that a local authority can ask this or that person to lecture on a subject of this kind. There must be definite central supervision of the people who lecture. Furthermore, a central body can get together, as the British Social Hygiene Council has got together, a number of people who will voluntarily engage in this work. I have already mentioned publicity in the national Press. There the British Social Hygiene Council has been able to undertake work which no local authority could do, namely, the work of inserting discreet advertisements, intended for people who might be disposed to seek advice about matters of this kind. That is beyond the power of a local authority. Up to a comparatively recent date about 105,000 replies had been received to the advertisements of that character issued by the British Social Hygiene Council. In all cases where the person answering an advertisement was seeking advice, he or she was referred to the local clinic. The secrecy, which is not
violated by those carrying on the clinics, has been pointed out to the person answering the advertisement and, I think I am right in saying that, calculating on the attendances at clinics up to the end of 1926, it was found that 13 per cent. of those seeking curative treatment were induced to do so by advertisements issued under the auspices of the British Social Hygiene Council.
There is another matter in connection with publicity which is of great importance. One of the troubles with all the clinics is that, unless the matter is kept continually before the public, people attend the clinic for a time and then drop off their attendances. It has been found that in every case where there has been active and continuous propaganda the percentage of attendances per case has risen, and there has been something like that continuous attendance which is so necessary. For example, in one county with over 320,000 inhabitants, where there was no propaganda, the attendances per head per new case were only 16.3; in another county with a population of 262,000, where there has been propaganda, the attendances per head per new case have been 31.1. In London, where there is continuous propaganda, the attendances are 42 per head per new case; and in other towns where there is no propaganda the figure is 18.9. It has also been found that wherever a film has been shown there has been, immediately, a very large increase in the number seeking the assistance of the clinics. Not only that, but they have been making the proper attendances which is of vital importance.
Within the last few weeks we have taken the trouble to inquire from a number of medical officers of health about this matter. They all state definitely that they consider public enlightenment on the subject of venereal disease to be essential in order to bring persons under treatment. One point in that connection is not without importance. This is not the sort of propaganda which can be indulged in for a shorter or a longer period and then left aside altogether. It has to be continuous. The age at which this disease is acquired in the main is from 19 years to 22 years. It is essential when dealing with young people who are in this grave danger—and it is a grave danger to the community—that propaganda
should be continuous. These medical officers were unanimous in stating that no local authority could have a proper film equipment, and all but one considered that no local authority could carry on a national Press propaganda. They were unanimous in the view that no local authority would contribute to a central fund unless the contributions were made compulsory, and to that point I shall refer more definitely later.
What has been the position? It has been said that local authorities ought to do propaganda for themselves, and that they can perfectly well do so; and it has even been suggested that they are now budgeting for fairly large sums to spend on prapaganda. That is no new feature. As a matter of fact, the amount which the local authorities have budgeted for propaganda has been shown to have a direct relation to the amount granted by the Ministry to the central body. When the Ministry granted to the central body £20,000, the local authorities spent £10,000; when the Ministry granted £9,000, the local authorities spent £6,000, and when the Ministry granted £8,000, the local authorities spent £5,000. Of the amount which the local authorities spent, the greater part was spent in association and in co-operation with the central authority, because a great deal of it was spent in taking advantage of the supply of lecturers which the central authority were able to give, of the films which the central authority were able to produce, and of the literature. Last year the local authorities spent on propaganda £5,500. Every penny of that amount was spent, directly or indirectly, in conjunction with the Council, except a sum of £384, which was spent on local propaganda without the cognisance of the Council. Therefore, when it is said that the local authorities are budgeting for a particular amount in any one year, it is clear and it is understood that the amount for which they are budgeting will be or would be spent in conjunction with the facilities for propaganda which are supplied by the central body.
There is one branch of the work of the central authority which does not seem to have received quite adequate attention at the hands of the Ministry. When it is said that local authorities are carrying out propaganda, it must not be forgotten that in many cases they have
only carried out local propaganda because they have been stimulated to it by the central body. I could give instance after instance. I will not give the names of authorities, but I could give the names, if necessary. I might, for example, point out that one local authority which to-day is carrying out work of propaganda required eight years of work by the British Social Hygiene Council before it could be induced to carry out a little bit of propaganda of its own. One county, during 10 years, was visited by representatives of the Council on seventeen occasions, on eight of which meetings were addressed which had been arranged in co-operation with local voluntary associations. Then, a branch of the British Social Hygiene Council was formed and, at last, after all that attention had been given to it, the local authority proceeded to bring out a scheme of propaganda but in order to carry it out they had to go for assistance to the British Social Hygiene Council, which had stimulated the work.
Although the Royal Commission recognised that work of a propaganda character was absolutely essential, there are still, out of 146 bodies responsible for the work or treatment, 30 counties and 24 county boroughs in which no work of propaganda of any kind has been carried out during the last five years. When one realises that you cannot carry out treatment of this kind effectively unless there is propaganda, it follows that there are 54 counties and county boroughs which have shown continuous neglect of their duty during the last five years. It may be said: "The central body has not induced them." No, but the central body has induced the remainder. It has induced 92 of the county and county borough authorities to carry out their work, and in the course of time if it carries on the same work which it has carried on up to now, it will induce the other 54. If you will remove the body which has taken the lead in bringing about this propaganda, the chances are that these 54 districts will remain in the abysmal ignorance in which their councils at present leave them.
What is the position in regard to this matter? It has been suggested, more or less recently, that this should be left entirely to the local authorities. What
has been the result? I believe a calculation was made that the cost of propaganda, local and Imperial, was somewhere about £l per 5,000 of the population. It was suggested that of that amount, 15s. per 1,000 would be right to be spent locally, and 5s. per 1,000 should be given in the way of a grant to the central body by the local authority. In order to get the local authorities to do that, the 75 per cent. grant was applied to propaganda as well as to treatment. What has been the result? In the first year that the scheme was in operation, instead of £9,000 being sent to the central body, which would have been the result had 5s. per 1,000 been sent, £1,248 was sent, not because the local authorities did not take advantage of the work which is done by the central body, not because they did not regard it as being important— the replies we have from the medical officers of health, and our own knowledge, show that they take full advantage of it and appreciate what is done—but simply because local authority "A" says, "We are not going to send £250, when local authority 'B' takes exactly the same advantage of what the central body does, and sends nothing at all to it."
It is obvious that unless we have an equitable scheme we shall not get a real contribution from the local authorities. The Amendment which I have put down enables the Minister to make a scheme which would provide for this contribution based upon 5s. per 1,000 of the population. I realise, and those who are associated with me in this matter realise, that it is not a very easy principle to force a particular contribution upon a local authority. If that be so, some other means must be taken. The only suggestion which has been made to meet the position has been the suggestion that, instead of the Amendment which we have put down to Clause 84, it will be sufficient to accept the New Clause which the Minister has put down to follow Clause 85. As first indicated to me, that Clause contained nothing at all that could help the voluntary associations which are concerned with venereal disease, and for this reason, that it was merely a Clause suggesting that the local authority might apply to the Minister to give a contribution, and then deduct that from their grant.
The local authorities have shown already that without compulsion, which
makes the thing fair all round, they will not give a voluntary contribution. Are they, therefore, going to be induced to do it when they are told: "You can make application, but if you do so, it will reduce the block grant which is sent to you." It seems to me that that is rather an idle way of dealing with the matter. I find that, as now put down, the New Clause is framed in such a way as to indicate the sort of service in respect of which these contributions may be expected. The Minister has included in his Clause the words:
Services relating to maternity and child welfare, lunacy, mental deficiency, and the welfare of the blind.
Any local authority reading that Clause would say: "These are the things which the Ministry are aiming at; therefore they are not aiming at venereal disease." That makes the Clause still worse, and it is certainly no alternative unless you make it a fair one by requiring a local authority to do this. I do not know whether the Minister thinks that he might be able to deal with the question by inserting some words which would include venereal disease in Clause 86. It might be that he would be able to deal with it by bringing it under the efficiency scheme. If he can assure me that that is the case and that that would deal with the contribution to the central authority, then, speaking for myself, and I think for those associated with me also, we should be content with something of that kind, but to leave it as he has done at the present time—that it is the one case where so far from helping the central body he is seeking to destroy whatever influence it may have on the treatment of this vile disease—is, in my submission, something which is not only entirely unnecessary, but which is a very serious blot on the Bill that can only be removed by putting an association, which is doing so much preventive work in connection with this terrible peril, in the same position of strength as he has put the other voluntary associations which are dealing with matters of public health.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. and learned Gentleman has, with his usual fairness and power, presented the case for this Amendment. He proposes that at the beginning of each fixed grant period the Minister shall make a scheme providing for the payment by councils of counties
and county boroughs of such amount as may be specified in the scheme to the central council of an approved organisation which provides services in the nature of general publicity and education propaganda in furtherance of the prevention and treatment of venereal disease. In other words, he is seeking— following, I suppose, the precedent which has already been established in relation to the maternity and child welfare service—to secure that the local authorities shall be obliged to pay an annual contribution to the British Social Hygiene Council or some corresponding body. I want at once to say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that, so far as this council is concerned, he shares with the hon. and learned Gentleman the feeling of appreciation of its work. Undoubtedly, the council has done very good service, and no one to-night desires to decry in any way the excellent work that it has done, particularly in the days when that kind of work was much more unpopular than it is to-day and when local councils were not playing that part which they are playing to-day.
Having said that, we must, on the other hand, look at the position so far as the local authorities are concerned, and, while endeavouring to appreciate the work that the council is doing, at the same time have regard to the undoubtedly increasing number of steps which are being taken and increasing work which the local authorities are themselves now carrying out in connection with (he stamping out of this very unfortunate disease. I can say without exaggeration that to a very large extent the work of the local authorities in connection with this disease is in full swing. The local authorities are to a very large extent—the great majority of them—alive to the imports ance of dealing with this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not one-third."] That is a great advance; it is a large majority; two-thirds. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will amend what I said, but it, at any rate, shows that two-thirds of them are actively engaged in this work. During the present year some £7,500 will be spent by local authorities. What is the position in a proposition of this kind? The position is that the Public Health Act of 1925 conferred on local authorities the power to undertake measures of propaganda and education, and many
authorities have desired to include venereal disease as one of the subjects in their general scheme of health propaganda. I think there is a great distinction to be made between the position of voluntary agencies who are carrying out maternity and child welfare work— actually having homes—and that kind of work and purely propaganda work as carried on by this institution. After all, responsibilities, and increasing responsibilities, as a result of these proposals for health services, rest with the local authorities, and we have an additional provision, as regards local authorities who are not doing that work, under Clause 86.
Therefore, I say, in the first place, you have local authorities to a large extent carrying on the work; secondly, that power has been given under the Act I have already cited; thirdly, that you have their responsibilities made still greater under the proposals in this Measure; and fourthly, if they are not carrying out their work in that connection, you have the operation of Clause 86. I say to the Committee without hesitation that I think local authorities would strongly resent being obliged, as the hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to make them obliged, to contribute towards the expenses of a body that they might or might not care to employ and whose methods they might or might not approve. It is a different matter altogether, when you come to propaganda and films and methods of that kind, from maternity and child welfare work, and I think it is a very strong demand to say that the local authorities must be compelled to contribute to this kind of propaganda work by an organisation, however good, which, on the other hand, they may not desire to use, and, secondly, when they might not approve of the exact methods of propaganda that are being employed in this connection.
My answer to the hon. and learned Member is this: I see no reason why the work of this council should not continue in conjunction with the work of local authorities, but there is considerable objection to giving this compulsory power to the Minister of Health and compelling them to contribute. I think that is going to an extreme length. We are proposing in the new Clause standing in the name of my right hon. Friend to give power
to the Minister to pay a contribution to voluntary associations out of the sums payable out of the general Exchequer grant. What my right hon. Friend has in mind is this: that, in the course of a communication he will have to make to local authorities when this Bill becomes law, he should point out that under this particular Clause they are able to make a contribution to this particular work if they so desire, and if they intimate to him that they desire to make such a contribution that he himself should make a payment out of the general Exchequer grant in order to help this council and obviate the necessity of their having to go round collecting considerable sums of money from various local authorities.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: Did not the Minister in both the years when the contribution was taken from local authorities make exactly the same representations that the Parliamentary Secretary suggests he should make now, and that there was a reduction of £400 in the contribution of £1,200.

Sir K. WOOD: That may be the case. I want, however, to make my point plain. After all, the main object is to get on with this work, and if local authorities are themselves spending money in this connection you must not expect them to make a contribution of the same amount to this particular Council. It does not show that there is any desire on the part of local authorities to avoid this kind of work, but rather that they are undertaking it themselves. My right hon. Friend suggests that he should make this communication to local authorities to which I have referred with the view of obtaining their authorisation for some contribution to be made in this way, thus avoiding a great deal of work on the part of the Council themselves in collecting the money. The reason why the words "venereal disease" are not mentioned in the Clause is because they come under the statutory definition in the Bill. That is perfectly plain, and there need be no doubt about it.
The real issue before the Committee is this: Is it right, in connection with propaganda and education work of this kind, to make it obligatory upon local authorities to contribute to the work of this association when they themselves may not utilise the association at all and when
the propaganda may be of such a kind that they do not approve? The question is whether in those circumstances it is right that the Minister should be given the power to say to local authorities that they must pay this contribution to this particular council. That power is very drastic and perhaps can be defended in some connections it can be defended in connection with maternity and child welfare, but I can understand the objections which local authorities might take on the ground that they are the people to conduct their health services and to determine what should be done. But if it can be defended in the case of maternity and child welfare it is a different matter to give power to the Minister of Health, however capable and competent he may be, to insist that local authorities should contribute, whether they like it or not, to the propaganda efforts of a particular council whose services they may not even utilise. For that reason my right hon. Friend feels unable to go further than he has indicated in his efforts to help this particular association.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Parliamentary Secretary has not put the issue quite fairly in the last few sentences of his speech. The real issue is whether this work can be done locally or whether it should not be done nationally, and it is because some of us think that behind all the local work there must be an organisation pursuing this propaganda on a national scale that we support the Amendment and ask the Minister to consider very carefully whether he cannot meet us in this matter. I want to emphasise particularly this point. The support for this proposal, or some modified proposal, is not a party support; it comes from all sections of the House. It is not one to destroy the Bill. Some of us on this side of the House strongly disapprove of the Bill, but many hon. Members opposite are strong supporters of the Measure. Nevertheless, we believe that this Amendment will not destroy the Bill, but will strengthen it in so far as it will make it better in this respect. Not only is it not a party support, but it is a support which does not divide the House upon matters which have hitherto divided the House on the question of venereal disease. The right hon. Gentle-
man will remember that early last year a proposal was brought forward on behalf of the City of Edinburgh for an alteration of some of the existing regulations with regard to venereal disease. It divided this House, and I found myself on that occasion supporting the Minister, or, strictly speaking, the Scottish Board of Health supported me in opposing that proposal. Those who took one view on that occasion and those who took the opposite view that day are united now on this occasion in pressing the Minister to reconsider his attitude in this matter.
The position as I see it is this: The Bill is inimical to the treatment of venereal disease. The particular point we are discussing on this Amendment does not stand alone. The percentage grant for venereal disease has been fixed very much higher than it has in any other matter because of the necessity, which was discovered, for giving every encouragement to local authorities to prosecute this campaign. Whereas for other purposes it reaches 50 per cent., it has hitherto been 75 per cent. The Exchequer pays £3 for every £l paid by local authorities in the matter of the treatment and prevention of venereal disease. The Bill removes all that and substitutes the block grant. Therefore, on that ground alone it will be open to say that this Bill is certainly taking a step that many of us think is very dangerous. But that is not the subject of discussion at the moment. It is open to the Minister to defend his block grant. But why should the Bill go further and in this other question, in which the principles of the Bill are not concerned, not be prepared to meet us? It is not as if the proposal to support this national organisation stood on our recommendation alone. It stands upon the recommendation of a Royal Commission which went fully into the matter and gave us a definite decision, not that it should be originally and for a limited time a national organisation, as we should rather imagine from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, but stated definitely:
We hope that the National Council established for this object will become a permanent and authoritative body in spreading knowledge and giving advice with regard to this question in its varying aspects, and that it will be recognised as such by the Government.
If we take what the Parliamentary Secretary said, we might imagine that it was
desirable to form this body in order to start the campaign, and that after the campaign had been set going it would be adequate to leave the matter to the local authorities. That was not the view of the Royal Commission at the time, as I have shown. Beyond that, I think that there are good grounds for holding that this must be a permanent and national organisation in order that the campaign may be continued. The Parliamentary Secretary attempted to argue that it was not necessary because many local authorities were now spending money on this question. Yet it is true that 60 out of 164, or something like two-fifths of the local bodies, are spending no money at all. We say that it is necessary to have a national organisation in order to stimulate the local authorities into taking this question seriously. It is a very grave matter that two-fifths of the local authorities are doing nothing, in spite of the encouragement that they receive at present from the National Exchequer, to stamp out this terrible disease.
But that is not all. It is only in the case of doing anything that there are as many as 90 out of 154 who are acting at all. In the matter of propaganda there are very much fewer. It is true that today a few of these authorities—I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary gave the number—are putting up a certain amount of money for local propaganda That is not enough. It is essential that such propaganda shall be national and shall be spread over the whole of the country, and that unless it is so spread a great deal of the effort that is being made by certain of these authorities is being wasted. You cannot set up barriers in, this matter, and persons will travel across frontiers and spread the disease into other localities. We feel that responsible opinion up and down the country is with us. It is imperative that the national organisation which exists should be maintained, and if this Bill acts in a way that is detrimental to the continuance of national propaganda, it strikes a very severe blow at the health of the people. We hope that even now, or between now and the Report stage, the Minister will reconsider his position and do something to meet us in the matter.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The gist of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, as I understood it, was that it was no good
to expect local authorities to contribute to funds when they might or might not approve, and that they might object to the making of payments to one specified council for propaganda. Those arguments do not seem to me to be well founded. If there is any disease in the world in regard to which national and continual propaganda and fairly expensive propaganda is required, it is this disease. Moreover, counties might be able to afford the kind of propaganda that is most valuable, through cinemas and the like, but there are not many county boroughs which could afford to keep plant idle for certain periods of the year, as it necessarily would be. Now that we have that kind of publicity so ready to our hands, the best use to make of it is to spread the knowledge as widely as possible up and down the country. That is why we should be on better ground if we attempted something like the proposal that is made in the Amendment. The wording of the Amendment would safeguard the Minister's position vis-a-vis the local authorities. If he found that during one fixed grant period certain authorities were able to afford to do all that they required, then they could be excluded presumably from the scheme on a future occasion. The fact that the Amendment speaks of an approved organisation gives the Ministry a means of seeing that the council concerned carries out the right kind of propaganda, and of such propaganda no local authority could reasonably be expected to disapprove. The words "approved organisation" enable the Minister to see that the methods of propaganda are really up-to-date and are on proper and economic lines. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take account of the great feeling that there is in the matter and see whether he cannot reconsider it before the next stage of the Bill.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I support the Amendment. The time has come for a national propaganda which rests upon the various local authorities of the country. The case has been overwhelmingly argued that nothing less than some kind of national authority can get this particular piece of work done. The Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that without the assistance of this particular national organisation the work that is being done to-day by the local authorities would not be done, and we should not
be in our present national position. The right hon. Gentleman put forward the view that he could not place this particular propaganda work on the same level as the maternity and child welfare service because it was different. Of course it is different. But its aim is precisely the same. The propaganda work is essentially aimed at preventing the disease from occurring. It is work of prevention in exactly the same sense as maternity and child welfare work, and from that point of view, as a great preventive work, it has the same claims upon us as the maternity and child welfare service.
10.0 p.m.
I wish it were possible to present to the Committee a photographic representation of the present incidence of this group of diseases. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is exaggerating in a very dangerous form the efficiency of propaganda work through local councils or the national council. There are all manner of quack agencies at work. We have to deal with delicate religious and psychological attitudes of mind. There is an overwhelming need that there should be gathered together great organisations of workers to carry this work a great deal further. No local authority, however well disposed, can possibly undertake this work. If we do not get the substance of this Amendment carried, we shall be thrown back on the educational and propaganda efforts of the local authorities concerned. At this time, confronted as we are with a problem of very great importance, it is much too early to pluck out this lynch-pin of national propaganda by undermining the whole financial basis which has been built up in the last few years. On all these grounds, I appeal to the Minister to consider this Amendment. We are not necessarily asking that this particular national organisation should be further charged with the responsibility. The Minister himself and his department might undertake the work. Why does the Minister not take it on?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to support the Amendment. I take up this attitude with the greatest reluctance and after the most sincere and continuous study of the Bill. I feel as a matter of conscience that I am bound to do so.
The situation has not been met by the Parliamentary Secretary not by anything which I have heard from those connected with the Ministry of Health. I hope it may be recognised that there is a strong feeling on this subject. One does not like to take up a position of superiority; but I cannot help feeling that the attitude which has been taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is that of one who has struggled to learn the subject without having had great experience of it. The right hon. Gentleman says that this propaganda can now be undertaken by the local authority. Look at the money which has been expended on propaganda and publicity in connection with this subject last year. In England and Wales the amount in question was £5,579 spent on this publicity by local authorities in connection with venereal disease.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Where do you get the figures from?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Those figures come from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord), who is accustomed to exercising the greatest care in studying his briefs. Out of that money there were direct payments to the British Social Hygiene Council, in respect to personnel and equipment supplied, of £3,094. The local expenses in connection with council campaigns were approximately £770, and the only expenditure on the propaganda independent of the council was £.384. It is quite clear to my mind that if those figures of my hon. and learned Friend are correct and not grossly exaggerated, the work of propaganda of the local authorities really depends upon this council. This council has come into being as being the most central, as being what was called by an hon. Member opposite the lynch-pin, recommended by the Royal Commission, and adopted by the then Government when the whole machinery was being set up. Look back to that time. There was no machinery for dealing with this disease at all. The matter was taboo. It was not even mentioned in the reports of the medical officers of health, and not a single individual in those days dared even mention it in this House.
The Royal Commission recommended that it should be dealt with, and the
whole scheme got up by that Commission hung upon this body that was to be founded. The body was founded, with the co-operation and collaboration of public men of experience on every side, men who have come back from being Governors in outer parts of the Empire and ex-Ministers of the Crown. We still hear that two-thirds of the local authorities have got some kind of publicity, for which they still depend on this Social Hygiene Council, which through its various emissaries, lectures, and publicity of one kind or another arouses the interest of the local councils and sooner or later gets to work. If that has been the way in which we have had to work so far, and the work, although it has extended nominally to two-thirds of the local authorities, has really touched only about one-third or one quarter of the land, if you come to analyse the population, it has not really got down to the actual individual conscience of the whole population. It is a most difficult thing to say you are going to pluck this matter up by the roots or to leave it to itself.
It is possible that the apologists for the Bill as it stands may say they are not interfering with the British Social Hygiene Council, and that if the Council is really worth its salt it will still attract the contributions of the charitable and so on. But that is not the case. Indeed, the Minister of Health has himself said, again and again, that the maternity and child welfare and other services attract any amount of attention and sympathy, but that he is concerned for such services as mental welfare and venereal disease, because they are the unpopular services. If you are going to take away, suddenly, the main source of supply of the British Social Hygiene Council, you are going to allow everybody to say that the Government have finished supporting it. The local authorities will say, "The Government no longer feel strongly about it; see what the Parliamentary Secretary said in the House of Commons. The Government do not feel it necessary to press us, and, therefore, as we have to economise, we will economise on this subject and leave it to charitable subscriptions."
Those of us who have had to deal with voluntary societies and propaganda in the past know quite well that that is the way in which an unpopular movement
fades away, and that is what will happen unless we get further powers in this connection. We have with difficulty, in the course of 12 to 16 years, built up a machinery that the Minister says is unpopular, and against the wishes of the public generally we have got it to this stage, but if we relax the grip for one moment, down it will go. Within 10 years, instead of it going ahead and spreading, as the Parliamentary Secretary said it would, it will gradually disappear, and the whole movement will be destroyed. Some of us will struggle on still for it, but it is impossible to expect it to go on spreading in the way that it should spread if we leave it to the option of the local authorities. I yield to none in my wish to give the local authorities freedom, and not to apply compulsion in things to which they object. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that we should not compel them to subscribe to a society to whose methods they might object, but I think that point has been well dealt with by an hon. Friend behind me, because obviously that would depend upon the Minister's authorising it. He would not authorise anything to which he objected, and if he did not object, no local authority would have the bad taste to object either. Why, then, should we have this discrimination between the other parties to Clause 84, which is an ordinary method of dealing with the blind, with mental -welfare and tuberculous patients? Why not do exactly the same with this disease? We use the precedent of the Clause in other matters, and we ask that the same machinery for venereal disease, for the unpopular service, should be used. We cannot see why that should be left out. I see no result, practically or theoretically, but a great disaster if this Bill goes through as it is and we are not given some kind of reconsideration of the Clause in the direction desired by the Amendment.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I also, like the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), support the Amendment with considerable reluctance, but not for the same reason that he advanced. He was reluctant to oppose any part of the Bill, but I am reluctant to support the Amendment because I feel the force of the arguments advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary that we should not be willing
to put any kind of compulsion on the local authorities. It is very well that we should be reluctant to do that, but we have to remember that in other parts of the Bill the Government have not shown the same tenderness for local authorities and have been quite ready to impose compulsion when they thought it was right. It is merely a matter of the comparative importance of the particular subject with which we are dealing to say whether or not it is an appropriate subject for compulsion. The reason why it is a proper subject for compulsion is very largely the reason given by the Parliamentary Secretary himself, namely, that it is an unpopular subject. If this were something on which one could raise a great wave of popular enthusiasm, there would be no need of machinery for propaganda, but by experience it has been proved to be the most difficult thing in the world to get this propaganda done on a proper scale, and because of that we have to employ compulsion of some kind.
The matter can be reduced to a comparatively small number of questions. First, is this propaganda really necessary? Everybody admits that it is necessary in the interests of public health. Secondly, if it is necessary, can it best be done by some kind of central body? Everybody admits, as far as I can make out, that it is best done by a central body. If you want a central body, is there any alternative to the Council which we are supporting? There may be some such alternative, but we have not had one suggested, and at any rate here is the body that is there and is functioning, and it can only function if it is given the kind of support that is embodied in this Amendment. Because the answer to those questions seems to me to be so simple, so inevitable, I feel that support ought to be given from all sides of the Committee to this Amendment to-night. If something of this kind is not carried, the progress which has been slowly and painfully won in this difficult field over so many years will be given away for once and for all, and the whole matter will have to be started again. I therefore humbly beg to support the Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This Amendment, I admit at once, has received very weighty support, and I confess that I find
myself opposing it with very considerable reluctance, partly because i value very much the work that has been done by the British Social Hygiene Council, work in which I have in the past taken considerable interest myself, and partly because I admire the devotion with which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord) has thrown himself into a business which is certainly not of a particularly popular character. He has done that out of a sense of public spirit, and he comes therefore to plead his cause with the additional prejudice in his favour which we must all give to a man who is doing such public service. I want the Committee to consider this matter very carefully. I agree that this is not in any way a party question, and that it is a question which involves no vital principle in the Bill. From these points of view, therefore, it would be easy for me to say that I would abide by what is obviously the desire of hon. Members, and have this passed by the Committee. But I would like to try to put to the Committee considerations that have been in my mind when I have been thinking over these matters. I have given a good deal of thought to this particular question, for I knew some time ago what were the apprehensions of the British Social Hygiene Council, and, sympathising with those apprehensions, I did try to see how far it would be possible for me to meet them.
The history of this question is very much to the point. Quotations have been made from the Report of the Royal Commission. The Commission did, of course, point out that at that time there was need above all else for propaganda, and that that propaganda, working as it would have to do in an entirely new field, must clearly be central and national in character. They therefore gave their support to the proposal that this work should be entrusted to a body of this kind and given definite approval and encouragement by the Government. That was done.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: A permanent body.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, a permanent body. That was 12 or 13 years ago, and the very fact that this body has done its work so well has very materially altered the situation. At that time, I think that it would be fair to say that
there was no local authority in the country that was at all enthusiastic about the subject. The whole pioneer work had to be done from the bottom. That, however, is not the case to-day. I am not going to argue as to the proportion of local authorities who are carrying out the work effectively to-day, but I do say that the position to-day is completely different from what it was 12 years ago. That has been illustrated by the fact that the amount of subvention which has been given by successive Governments to a central body has steadily decreased. It began with an amount of £13,000 yearly, and it has come down year by year until it is now in the neighbourhood of £6,000. The reason for that is that it is recognised that, step by step, one by one of the local authorities have come to realise the necessity for, and the value of the work of, preventing and treating venereal disease. My hon. and learned Friend quoted the figure of £5,579, which he said was what the local authorities had spent in the year before last. I asked him where he got those figures, because we have not got any such figures in the Ministry of Health. I do not know how he got his figures, but I know he is a careful man.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: The figures have been given to me by those who have followed this matter very carefully indeed. I, myself, have every faith in them, and I am quite prepared to satisfy my right hon. Friend as to their reliability.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not going to challenge the figures. All I say is that I was curious to know how those figures had been obtained. Let us take it that those figures are correct. What I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to is the fact, which my right hon. Friend announced, that in the current year the expenditure of local authorities on this propaganda is going to be £7,500. You may say that that is not a very large amount, but I would point out that it is very nearly 35 per cent. more than what my hon. and learned Friend said the local authorities were spending in the year before. If the local authorities are increasing their expenditure on this propaganda by 35 per cent. in a single year, I think it is obvious that I am right in saying that the progress of the understanding of the value
and the necessity of this work is very considerable among local authorities.
The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. R. Smith) said that my right hon. Friend had declared in effect that the policy of the Government was to substitute local propaganda for central propaganda, that they had come to the conclusion that the time had come to change over from the one to the other. I do not remember that my right hon. Friend made any such pronouncement as that. I think it is true to say that there are in this country a number of local authorities, including some important ones, who would take the view that everything necessary in the way of propaganda can be done better and more completely by a local authority than by any central authority. It is not my personal view. My personal view is that while some of the work which was performed at the beginning of their career by this body is no longer of the same importance, in view of the success which they have achieved, that there are still things which a central body can do which no local authority is likely to do. Therefore, I do not desire personally to see the British Social Hygiene Council disappear. On the contrary, I should like to see them continue, and continue with the assent, the approval and the support of local authorities.
Why, then, do I oppose this Amendment? The Amendment is based really upon the analogous provisions in Clause 84, the provisions which deal with the welfare of the blind and the service of the mentally deficient. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) said: "All we ask is that you should give us exactly what you have given them; why do you make the distinction between us?" Surely the distinction is very obvious. It lies in the nature of the work. These other associations are carrying on work which is a vital part of the work of the local authorities. They are actually providing the homes, or running the homes; they are Ferforming individual service for individual patients. There is nothing of that kind in the case of this particular body. These are not individual services, or services in respect of which it can be said that this or that local authority cannot perform its duty. The two things which
have been complained of are not in the same category but are in two different classes. While you can say to a local authority that they must make a scheme which provides for a compulsory contribution to services which are an essential part of the duties which they have to perform, you cannot take up that attitude on a matter of this kind, where things are so widely different, where the service is of so general a character and not necessarily connected with the particular work of the local authority. Therefore, it is impossible for me to compel these local authorities to contribute. It may be true that some of these local authorities are getting some advantage, without paying for it, from the publicity which is given by others, but, if you made it compulsory, you would be compelling some people to pay for things which they would not use.
I want to try to help the Social Hygiene Council, in the first place, by using such influence as I can bring to bear upon local authorities, and bring home to them that there is a real need for a central organisation of this kind to which they ought to contribute. Secondly, I want to make it easy for them to do so by offering to make the payments by the Ministry deducting that amount from the grant. That is the situation as it will be after this Bill becomes law. The grant which we have been giving to this body is no longer to be given to them, but it is to be given to the local authority and it will form part of the general Exchequer contribution. It will be distributed among the local authorities, and it is given to them in order that they may do their duty in regard to venereal disease.

The Minister is in quite a new position in regard to all these services. It is only right that the local authorities should perform their duties in an adequate manner, and, if they are not doing so because they will not use the services of this particular body, then it is quite clear that I have a very strong case for asking that they should make their contribution. I ask hon. Members to think well before they compel these responsible bodies to contribute to something of which they may not approve. I, as the responsible Minister, do not desire to see this body disappear, and I shall take all the steps I can within the limits of this Bill to assist it.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: It seems to me that the Minister of Health has not been quite so logical in his reply as he usually is. The distinction which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn between making a claim on the local authorities to support the central propaganda body and his refusal to compel them seems to be rather a fine one. The right hon. Gentleman admits that national propaganda is essential for the prevention of these diseases, and at the same time he refuses to give support to the body which provides it.

It being Half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th. December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 204.

Division No. 131].
AYES.
[10.31 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hllisbro')
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Ammon, Charles George
Gillett, George M.
John, William (Rhonada, West)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)
Jones, Henry Hayan (Merioneth)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Barnes, A.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Batey, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Kelly, W. T.


Bellamy, A.
Groves, T.
Kennedy, T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grundy, T. W.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Broad, F. A.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bromley, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lamb, J. Q.


Compton, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Lansbury, George


Connolly, M.
Hardle, George D.
Lawrence, Susan


Cove, W. G.
Harris, Percy A.
Lee, F.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hayday, Arthur
Lindley, F. W.


Dennison, R.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Lowth, T.


Duncan, C
Hirst, G. H.
Lunn, William


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mackinder, W.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Ritson, J.
Tinker, John Joseph


March, S.
Scrymgeour, E.
Townend, A. E.


Morris, R. H.
Scurr, John
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sexton, Jamas
Wellock, Wilfred


Mosley, Sir Oswald
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Murnin, H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Naylor, T. E.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilson, C. H. (Shemeld, Attercliffe)


Oliver, George Harold
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Palin, John Henry
Stamford, T. W.
Windsor, Walter


Paling, W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wright, W.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Strauss, E. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sullivan, J.



Ponsonby, Arthur
Sutton, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Potts, John S.
Thorne. G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Dr. Drummond Shiels and Lieut.-


Purcell, A. A.
Thurtle, Ernest
Colonel Fremantle.


NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Apsley, Lord
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Waldses


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Astor, Viscountess
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr).


Atkinson, C.
Gates, Percy
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bainlel, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Gower, Sir Robert
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bennett, A. J.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nuttall, Ellis


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oakley, T.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hacking, Douglas H.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Bevan, S. J.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hamilton, Sir George
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hanbury, C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Brass, Captain W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harrison, G J. C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hartington, Marquess of
Pilcher, G.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnss)
Preston, William


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Raine, Sir Walter


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Remer, J. R.


Burman, J. B.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rentoul, G. S.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hills, Major John Waller
Richardson, sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cassels, J. D.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ropner, Major L.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mostley)
Rye, F. G.


Christie, J. A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Salmon, Major I.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sandon, Lord


Clayton, G. C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Savery, S. S.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Iveagh, Countess of
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shepperson, E. W.


Colman, N. C. D.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Simms, Dr. John M, (Co. Down)


Cope, Major Sir William
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Skelton, A. N.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smithers, Waldron


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Loder, J. de V.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Long, Major Eric
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dawson, Sir Philip
tougher, Lewis
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lumlay, L. R.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tomilnson, R. P.


Dunnico, H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Macintyre, Ian
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Ellis, R. G.
McLean, Major A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macquisten, F. A.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wells, S. R.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faveraham)
Wingins, William Martin


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Margesson, Captain D,
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Forrest, W.
Meller, R. J.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)




Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wolmer, Viscount
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)
Womersley, W. J.



Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock at this day's sitting.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 92.

Division No. 132.]
AYES.
[10.40 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Apsley, Lord
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Astor, Viscountess
Gates, Percy
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Atkinson, C.
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cllve


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Bainlel, Lord
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Gower, Sir Robert
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Nuttall, Ellis


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Oakley, T.


Bennett, A. J.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Betterton, Henry B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bevan, S. J.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hall, Capt. w. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hamilton, Sir George
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brass, Captain W.
Hanbury, C.
Pilcher, G.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harrison, G. J. C.
Preston, William


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hartington, Marquess of
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Raine, Sir Walter


Broun-Lindiay, Major H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Haslam, Henry C.
Renter, J. R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.( Berks,Newb'y)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Burman, J. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cassels, J. D.
Hills, Major John Waller
Rye, F. G.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Salmon, Major I.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandon, Lord


Christle, J. A.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moesley)
Sassoon, sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney.N).
Savery, S. S.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd,Whiteh'n)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Clayton, G. C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Iveagh, Countess of
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Skelton, A. N.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Colman, N. C. D.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Smithers, Waldron


Cope, Major Sir William
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lamb, J. Q.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindley,Gainsbro)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Loder, J. de V.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Long, Major Eric
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lougher, Lewis
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lumley, L. R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Dean, Arthur Welletley
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. H.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Eden, Captain Anthony
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macintyre, I.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
McLean, Major A.
Wells, S. R.


Ellis, R. G.
Macmlilan, Captain H.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Macquisten, F, A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Meller, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forrest, W.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Withers, John James
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Wolmer, Viscount
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Captain Margesson and Mr. Penny.


Womorsley, W. J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Ammon, Charles George
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sexton, James


Bellamy, A.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromley, J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Stamford, T. W.


Dennison, R.
Lee, F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Duncan, C.
Lindley, F. W.
Strauss, E. A.


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Sullivan, J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lunn, William
Sutton, J. E.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mackinder, W.
Thurtie, Ernest


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Morris, R. H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wiggins, William Martin


Grundy, T. W.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Murnin, H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hardie, George D.
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Waller


Harris, Percy A.
Palin, John Henry
Wright, W.


Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Purcell, A. A.

CLAUSE 85.—(Payment of Grants.)

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 96.

Division No. 133.]
AYES.
[10.48 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gates, Percy


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Clarry, Reginald George
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Clayton, G. C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Apsley, Lord
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gower, Sir Robert


Astor, Viscountess
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Atkinson, C.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Grant, Sir J. A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colman, N. C. D.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Balniel, Lord
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cope, Major Sir William
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hacking, Douglas H.


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Bennett, A. J.
Crookshank, Cpt. H (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hamilton, Sir George


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hanbury, C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bevan, S. J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hartington, Marquess of


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Dawson, Sir Phillip
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Brass, Captain W.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totpes)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Haslam, Henry C.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Eden, Captain Anthony
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Ellis, R. G.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Brown, Brig. Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hills, Major John Waller


Buckingham, Sir H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Burman, J. B.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Forrest, W.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Cassels, J. D.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'I'nd, Whiten'n)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gadle, Lieut-Col. Anthony
Hume, Sir G. H.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Inskip, sir Thomas Walker H.


Chirstle, J. A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Iveagh, Countess of


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Nelson, Sir Frank
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Joynson Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Smithers, Waldron


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Nuttall, Ellis
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Oakley, T.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Storry-Deans, R.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lamb, J. O.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Locker-Lampton, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Loder, J. de V.
Pitcher, G.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Long, Major Eric
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Lougher, Lewis
Preston, William
Ward, Lt.-Col.A. L. (Kingston-on-Hilt)


Lumley, L. R.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Raine, Sir Walter
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Catheart)
Remer, J. R.
Watts, Sir Thomas


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wells, S. R.


Macintyre, Ian
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'tsy)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


McLean, Major A.
Ropner, Major L.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Macquisten, F. A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemogth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Rye, F. G.
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Salmon, Major I.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Meller, R. J.
Sandon, Lord
Withers, John James


Meyer, Sir Frank
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wolmer, Viscount


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Savery, S. S.
Womersley, W. J.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Shepperson, E. W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)



Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ. Belfast)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Skelton, A. N.
Captain Margesson and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock,
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Purcell, A. A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barnes, A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scrymgeour, E.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scurr, John


Bellamy, A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sexton, James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Compton, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawrence, Susan
Stamford, T. W.


Dennison, R.
Lee, F.
Strauss, E. A.


Duncan, C.
Lindley, F. W.
Sullivan, J.


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Evans Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mackinder, W.
Thurtie, Ernest


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tomilnson, R. P.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
March, S.
Townend, A. E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morris, R. H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Groves, T.
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wiggins, William Martin


Grundy, I. W.
Murnin, H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanin)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Hardle, George D.
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Harris, Percy A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

Resolved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.